Could this be Obamas real Certificate of Birth?

reply to post by dereks

Originally posted by 46ACE
1) First we have to agree the constitution is not just a gawddamn piece of paper but the "Supreme law" of theland. no law is higher.

This pretty much refutes items #1

The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]

Source

I read that to mean the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution in the area of executive privilege.

reply to post by Nogard2012


I believe it is because it shows the double Xx on the bottom of the foot. The Xx has significance in prophecy do your research when it comes to this mark. ^Y^

reply to post by kinda kurious

I read that to mean the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution in the area of executive privilege.

Not sure if the Supreme Court trumps the constitution but I heard in times of crisis, as with 9/11, the constitution was partially suspended to allow for unconstitutional investigations..

The patriot act is also part of that and much is STILL in force..

reply to post by Sinnthia

That is apparently because you have not bothered to educate yourself on what those circumstances are. You cannot use a short form to prove your are Native to Hawaii going back over 200 years. You cannot use a short form within a state that does not issue short forms. If you can find the stipulation you have imagined above, please provide that.

I gave you a credible source..
If you dissagree then YOU show proof...
Otherwise my post stands..That's how a debate works

Originally posted by backinblack

I gave you a credible source..
If you dissagree then YOU show proof...
Otherwise my post stands..That's how a debate works

You gave a source that does not back up any claim. Maybe you need to reiterate the claim. I explained what it means about certain circumstances. Show me where your source says anything different. You need to back up your claim. THAT is how debate works.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Well here in the states we have two kinds of birth certificates. There is a long form and a short form. Both are birth certificates.

not anymore ... quit spreading disinfo. short forms are no longer issued and they are still being phased out, everywhere. Real ID fixed that for everyone. (including Obama)

Yes, I have seen the real one.

still fantasizing eh? well ok then, please, show all (on this certificate you've seen), any attending physician signature? date it was accepted by the local registrar? signature of parents? you know, all the items inclusive of a 'natural born' American birth. do share, please? then we can finally put this fiasco to rest.

Originally posted by Honor93
not anymore ... quit spreading disinfo. short forms are no longer issued and they are still being phased out, everywhere. Real ID fixed that for everyone. (including Obama)

Then you are no longer looking for that long form either then?

still fantasizing eh? well ok then, please, show all (on this certificate you've seen), any attending physician signature?

There is not one. The simple fact that over 30,000 children are born without a doctor present each YEAR in the US kind of voids the need.

date it was accepted by the local registrar? signature of parents? you know, all the items inclusive of a 'natural born' American birth. do share, please? then we can finally put this fiasco to rest.

You really need me to post the same pictures that are in every birther thread on ATS for you?

How about you show me some legal US stipulation about exactly what information is required to be on a Hawaiian birth certificate and I promise, I will show you a picture of just that. Be accurate now. Good luck!

reply to post by Sinnthia

You gave a source that does not back up any claim. Maybe you need to reiterate the claim. I explained what it means about certain circumstances. Show me where your source says anything different. You need to back up your claim. THAT is how debate works.

I made a claim with a credible link to verify..
You gave an OPINION with no proof to back it up..

Show me a credible source that backs up your opinion or it's just that, an opinion..

reply to post by kinda kurious


please read some more ... and something other than Wiki ...

Executive privilege is a right to withhold information from the legislative and judicial branches by the President or by one of the executive departments

source: www.usconstitution.net...

definition: exemption from legally enforced disclosure of communications within the executive branch of government when such disclosure would adversely affect the functions and decision-making processes of the executive branch

- source: www.merriam-webster.com...

need more? read anything here: www.constitution.org...

Originally posted by backinblack
I made a claim with a credible link to verify..

No you did not. You cannot show me where you source backs up anything but one vague phrase. Can you define it? Can you apply it legally? Can you even explain it?

Show us your claim and your source side by side.

You gave an OPINION with no proof to back it up..

I disputed your claim by explaining your source to you.

Show me a credible source that backs up your opinion or it's just that, an opinion..

Still waiting on you there, sportsfan.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by backinblack
I made a claim with a credible link to verify..

No you did not. You cannot show me where you source backs up anything but one vague phrase. Can you define it? Can you apply it legally? Can you even explain it?

Show us your claim and your source side by side.

You gave an OPINION with no proof to back it up..

I disputed your claim by explaining your source to you.

Show me a credible source that backs up your opinion or it's just that, an opinion..

Still waiting on you there, sportsfan.

What a ranting crock of BS..
You have shown not one source to backup ANY of your opinions..
Just the usual disinfo rants...

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Then you are no longer looking for that long form either then?

not following your question, i have 6 long forms currently ... what more am i looking for?
if you are referring to the POTUS, yes, i demand legitimate proof of the "natural born", Constitutional requirement

There is not one. The simple fact that over 30,000 children are born without a doctor present each YEAR in the US kind of voids the need.

nice deflection but that pig just won't fly ... try again ... wasn't the case in 1961 or Obama.
Yes, it is 'needed' and since you admit "There is not one" ... i wonder, how exactly do you Know that?
(after all, you keep saying you've already seen it - so, which is it?)

How about you show me some legal US stipulation about exactly what information is required to be on a Hawaiian birth certificate and I promise, I will show you a picture of just that. Be accurate now. Good luck!

edit on 9-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

better yet, you find a reasonable argument other than falsehoods and we'll play. until then, shame on you.
i don't paste pics but here's a link ... from HI, from same year ... the legal mumbo-jumbo you can search on your time ... i've been there and my records are on another hd ... do your own homework. pic of valid, long form similar to what Obama needs to present: www.wnd.com...
pssssst ... don't forget, i already possess 3 of them ... one, 1962, 1966 and another from 1933
do you really think Obama would have anything different than every other American born citizen, unless he was Not born in America ??

reply to post by Honor93


Sounds like you know a bit about BC's in Hawai..
Care to explain to me why Obama's BC was issued 4 days after his birth?
That's NOT something that happens here in Australia..
Especially not for hospital births...

Originally posted by Honor93
not following your question, i have 6 long forms currently ... what more am i looking for?
if you are referring to the POTUS, yes, i demand legitimate proof of the "natural born", Constitutional requirement

You were the one saying real ID did away with any need for either. Show me where the constitution says anything about which form is acceptable.

nice deflection but that pig just won't fly ... try again ... wasn't the case in 1961 or Obama.
Yes, it is 'needed' and since you admit "There is not one" ... i wonder, how exactly do you Know that?
(after all, you keep saying you've already seen it - so, which is it?)

No, it is not needed. They did not print an infinite supply of long form birth certificates in 1961 in order to replace every one that might get lost. I am not following your logic at all.

better yet, you find a reasonable argument other than falsehoods and we'll play.

So you just cannot simply show me what is legally required to be on a Hawaiin birth certificate? As a birther this knowledge and requisite sources should have been second hand 2 years ago.

until then, shame on you.

Exactly. You do not even know what you are asking for and when asked to define it, you fold. Shame.

i don't paste pics but here's a link ... from HI, from same year ... the legal mumbo-jumbo you can search on your time ... i've been there and my records are on another hd ... do your own homework. pic of valid, long form similar to what Obama needs to present: www.wnd.com...
pssssst ... don't forget, i already possess 3 of them ... one, 1962, 1966 and another from 1933
do you really think Obama would have anything different than every other American born citizen, unless he was Not born in America ??

Since every state issues different certificates, I would indeed expect his to differ from mine. Although they barely do. The pic you linked to was printed when? Right. Now. You need to prove that that only has legally required information on it. This is going to be tough to do when you find out why the change was made to short forms. Before you can go asking for a valid birth certificate, you might want to find out what one is. Get back to me with that legal info I asked about.

Originally posted by backinblack
What a ranting crock of BS..
You have shown not one source to backup ANY of your opinions..
Just the usual disinfo rants...

You linked to wikipedia and then made a claim that even wikipedia did not back up. That is probably why you are refusing to quote the text to back up your claim? Sorry but just because you said something and put up a link does not mean you are automatically proven correct. Your source needs to support your claim first. Try that.

reply to post by Sinnthia


lol, another rant with no source..
Your new to this disinfo job right??

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

lol, another rant with no source..
Your new to this disinfo job right??

Keep repeating that. Let me know if it ever works. You are not going to trick me into believing your sourceless claims just because I cannot source my disbelief.

They should have hidden their wikileaked cables half as well as they did Obama's birth certificate.

Really though I have never seen it either. I would like to. I know there are media people who claim to have seen it, but I would like to see it the same as anyone else could see mine.

Ah well, wish in one hand I suppose.

Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe
but I would like to see it the same as anyone else could see mine.

Anyone?
Can we see yours?