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.

 

Could this be Obamas real Certificate of Birth?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

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.


lol, my sourceless claims??
I posted my source as you are well aware..
It was also obviously an anti-birther site if you bothered to check..
But even they can't lie about certain facts..

You on the other hand have posted NO sources to verify your opinion..
I can play this game all day..
You will still NOT post a source for your OPINIONS..




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
lol, my sourceless claims??
I posted my source as you are well aware..


IT DID NOT BACK UP YOUR CLAIM THOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It was also obviously an anti-birther site if you bothered to check..
But even they can't lie about certain facts..


No, it was wikipedia, the same source most birthers ignore when it points out that a short form and a long form are both valid birth certificates. Seems you missed that part. However, it also did NOT BACK UP YOUR CLAIM!!!!


You on the other hand have posted NO sources to verify your opinion..


I do not have to. Your source workd for me. Would you really like me to link it back to you?


I can play this game all day..
You will still NOT post a source for your OPINIONS..


Ditto.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Maybe this can help.


Originally posted by backinblack
This is about US birth certificates..
Please note this part.

it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances


You would expect the HIGHEST position in the land would fall OUTSIDE those circumstances..





Now just show me where your source says the the president falls outside those circumstances or where it defines those circumstances at all. That is how you back up this claim you made above. Good luck. All the kids in the stands are rooting for ya!



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Ahh you are sad...
No source, no proof..

Though your opinion is fine, just not worth much without FACTS..



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

your question is rather vague but i'll try to answer.
do you mean the form 'posted publicly' ? if so, that's easy.

the form released to the public is merely a 'registration' that a birth occurred and was 'registered' in HI, period.
the form presented, proves nothing beyond what is stated above. there are plenty of legal links to consult for verification of what i said. (as mentioned to another, homework is yours)

HI joined the union barely 18 months prior to Obamas birth. Most 'standardization' in govt forms and procedures came directly from the CA model. (of which i possess) Many foreign born persons were registered in HI for the simple privilege of being recognized as an American citizen ... it is well documented.

this is not really what i call a 'source', however the content is good reading and here's a snipit that does apply to this situation, the law and also clearly explains how i am also positive, the 'document in question' doesn't exist.


all the information in the original Certificate of Live Birth is still available. How do I know this ? It is the law in Hawaii. From the Hawaii Revised Statutes:

92-31 Disposition of original record. A photograph, microphotograph, reproduction on film, or electronic form of a government record shall be placed in conveniently accessible files and provisions made for preserving, examining, and using the same. Thereafter, a public officer, after having first received the written approval of the comptroller as provided in section 94-3, may cause such record, paper, or document to be destroyed. The comptroller may require, as a prerequisite to the granting of such approval, that a reproduction or print of such photograph, microphotograph, or reproduction on film, or electronic form of the record be delivered into the custody of the public archives for safekeeping. The comptroller may also require the delivery into the custody of another governmental department or agency or a research library of any such record, paper, or document proposed to be destroyed under the provisions of this section.


So, either the original microfiche copy is still available or a complete reproduction of it in electronic form is available. To put something in electronic form and not copy all the data on the original document would be against the law. Where these files have to be accessible and provisions have to be made for examining them, it would be misleading for the Department of Health to say that the information on the original Certificate of Live Birth is no longer available. Under Hawaii Revised Stautes 338-18, those with a direct and tangible interest in the record are permitted inspection of public health statistics records. That would include either the microfiche or electronic copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth.
source: hallofshame.cjb.net...

the resources are out there but digging through the net these days for the good stuff has to be akin to searching for a needle in a haystack.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Ahh you are sad...
No source, no proof..

Though your opinion is fine, just not worth much without FACTS..


I am not sure how this works in Austrailia but since you are claiming that the job of president falls outside the acceptable circumstances under which a short form is valid, YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP.

Your source actually disputes this claim but that would mean reading the whole page.

Back up your claim. So sad that you would make a claim, offer a source not backing it up, then demand people prove you wrong. You keep that kind of logic in your hemi.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Now you guys are going to have to come to an agreement about which source you want to believe. Your opinion sources contradict his wikipedia source and vice versa. You kids sort that out.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by Honor93
 


Now you guys are going to have to come to an agreement about which source you want to believe. Your opinion sources contradict his wikipedia source and vice versa. You kids sort that out.


lol, atleast we try to show proof..Unlike some..

Though 2012 will be VERY interesting.

60+ Lawmakers 7 States Tell Obama; if you want on 2012 ballot, RELEASE THE RECORDS! -


That's now..How many more will join by 2012.??

Kinda shows what many think of your "so called" proof.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
lol, atleast we try to show proof..Unlike some..


Tried and failed.
Pat each other on the back until 2012 then.


Though 2012 will be VERY interesting.

60+ Lawmakers 7 States Tell Obama; if you want on 2012 ballot, RELEASE THE RECORDS! -


That's now..How many more will join by 2012.??

Kinda shows what many think of your "so called" proof.


Ohhh, maybe lots and lots.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


As a debater you are boring..Not worth the effort.
I can leave this thread knowing you will contribute nothing of fact..
Not wasting any more time on the likes of you...

Stay safe and see you in 2012



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
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.

don't even start with your psycho-babble ... i did NOT say any such thing, you are soooo full of bull ... Real ID is eliminating all acceptance of short forms. Long forms for 'American Born' citizens are the only acceptable Real ID, currently ... just renewed a few in 2008.
(DMV, school, job, state ID, SS, you name it, they ALL require long forms unless you don't qualify for one)


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.

that's because you choose otherwise. and yes, it is needed because such forms don't 'get lost' ... that is against the law ... see pvs post and off-site quote included.


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.

hmmm, too lazy to open the link provided ... typical.


Since every state issues different certificates

you sure about that? i would beg to differ and i'm not posting my documents.


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.

who cares when the pic was printed? we are discussing the document ... do you expect to find an 'internet' source before it was ever invented? (1961) ... i know when, why and how many times the forms have been 'updated' and the process used for each, do you? Bet you don't have an original, state certified and issued, 'hand-written' natural born birth certificate, do you? i do. get back to me when you've done YOUR homework.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 

get a grip, i'm one of the ppl that adds to Wiki so the whole story eventually becomes available ... educated folk don't reference Wiki very often and if they do, alternate sources are included. education is a wonderful thing but Wiki does nothing to advance the concept.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


wise move ... i've danced this polka with Sinn before
but my toes could use a little exercise soooo, i do hope i helped you find some answers
*** peace ***



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Of course. I have no issue showing it. Would you like me to fax you a copy? There is also a copy in my public school records that can be viewed by anyone who has access to those files. There are other copies floating around different employers as well. You don't always have to be dead for 100 years for it to be "seen" by anyone other than a close relative.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
What has been staring everyone in the face is the effects of political correctness and no one has seen it. The beauty of this liberal political correctness is that the person who forged this document got caught in their own trap of affirmative action hyphenated Americans.

Look closely at Stanley Ann Dunham's race. Caucasian.

Now look closely at Barack Hussein Obama sr's race. It is listed as African.
That doesn't seem all that interesting and no one has noticed it until one looks that this is an official document filed in August 1961.

Most people on the internet and blogging have no sense of history nor in the use of words and it is this lack of sense which is going to bite whoever forged this document.

Up until 1968, the standard term for all Africans was "negroe". This fit with the absolute secular scientific teaching of the day which notes the world has 3 races in Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid.
It was not until the Black Revolution when negroe or negro became a foul description in the late 1960's and then "black" was demanded by this group to describe them.
It was not until the late 1970's when political correctness came into vogue that it ushered in by the 1980's the term "African" to describe all blacks.

Whoever forged this birth certificate was not utilizing the 1960's terminology which a black person would be listed as. They fell instead into a warped year 2000 politically correct description of "African".

This is absolutely telling as if you looked at birth records in Prussia centuries ago, those people would be termed Prussian, Bavarian etc... as Germany did not yet exist as a terminology for nation state. If someone was listed as German in 1700, it would be glaring forgery just like the Obama forgery stuns the eyes once one knows what they are looking at.

If this case it is African, then why is not Stanley Ann Dunham labeled correctly North American after her continent? She though is labeled correctly as Caucasian as that is exactly as she is.

If one still today searches enough death certificates in the 50 United States, you will find listed on them the term NEGRO. Now that is over 40 years since 1961 in Barack Obama's birth and political correctness has not reached completely into the coroner's records.

That fact is scientific and if it still exists today as proof it certainly is the proof from before 1900 in America and past 1960 that all blacks were noted as "negroe" or "negro" on all public records from birth certificates, marriage licenses, passports, driver's licenses to death certificates.

Whoever forged the Barack Obama birth certificate got caught in their own political correctness.
In 1961 America, blacks were negroes and not Africans no matter if they came from Africa or not.
If one cares to examine the Negroe Leagues in baseball where blacks were to "pass" as Cubans to the United Negroe College Fund to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, there was no African at all in any terminology.
One was negroe on legal documents and "colored" in common usage.

No pixels in this. No questioning borders and no questions about the researcher's expertise as negroe is American history and scientific fact just like whoever forged the Obama birth certificate got caught in political correctness in not being able to use a term they were trained to avoid.

That is a fact. This "short form" birth certificate is a fake.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Nogard2012
 


Wow, are people still going on about this non story?!



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I thought this was the OFISHAL one ?




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by sirric
 


Thank you for your post. It really highlights the true nature of the birther thread. You claim the BC is a hoax because it lists race as African. Not one birther asks you for a source or proof, they just star your post. Sorry, birthers. Your true nature is showing. Better check your history again and see if Hawaii used Negroe or African at the time. I certainly await your sources.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
 


Post it right here in this thread for EVERYONE to see.
You did say EVERYONE.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


As a debater you are boring..Not worth the effort.
I can leave this thread knowing you will contribute nothing of fact..
Not wasting any more time on the likes of you...

Stay safe and see you in 2012


I guess that is easier than admitting your source does not back your claim. I suppose it is way easier than taking the time to find ANY SOURCE to back up your claim? Again, the true colors come out. A birther is asked to properly source their claims and that is a sin?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join