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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
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.


Then I guess you might want to tell that to your little buddy who is the one using wikipedia as a source.

Did you really just type that? Calling each other unintelligent already?




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
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 ***


You have also made claims then provided wikipedia as a source for that claim even though wikipedia not only does not back it up but further reading disputes said claim? I believe that.

If you guys are going to use wikipedia, it would help not to call it a bad source first. If you are going to use wikipedia, make sure it actually backs up the point it is being used to support.

Why can't any of you just back up your claims?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Existing ATS threads on this exact topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I guess we need another one.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

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?


actually, what is funny is that YOU are the only one devoid of sources ... not one legitimate, legal, historical, clerical, blogger or even fictional sources. (yes, that one has been tried before
)

so, where are YOUR sources?
proving any of the false claim or the insinuation that every other American is wrong, crazy, lunatic, racist or generally unfit to think for themselves or less than 'permitted' to demand proof?

pssssst: i starred the post ... why? because it is the truth (previously researched) but i find other issues more discerning. I don't care what makes the COLB 'fake' in anyones opinion. It is not acceptable 'proof' of natural born status, period. To me, the rest is irrelevant.
edit on 9-1-2011 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Honor93
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.


Then I guess you might want to tell that to your little buddy who is the one using wikipedia as a source.

Did you really just type that? Calling each other unintelligent already?

what 'little buddy' are you referring to? you offer -0- sources and i don't 'support' Wiki as a resource.
the choice of Others is just that, their choice.
no wonder you're having difficulty with the basics ... individuals often share an opinion but not necessarily for the same reasons ... perhaps you should try it sometime.
if you cannot separate your conversations, how do you separate your fantasies from reality?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


you first ... any resource with legitimate information would be fine.
also, IF i reference Wiki, it is Along with another source for 'confirmation' of the Wiki info.

Wiki often lacks vital info and i seldom reference it. in this topic, not once.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 

your circles are boooorrrrriiiiing
have a nice day



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by 46ACE
The Dems alway say "well the clintons would have found it!!


Of course there is also the fact that McCain had lawyers look into it and they came back all sad to say Obama was born in Hawaii.Here It is the birthers that always bring up Clinton for some odd reason.


Nooooo... what they said was this (from your link:


“The conversation was along the lines of ‘this is idiotic, but explain to me why,’” said the lawyer, who spoke under condition of anonymity to TWI. “I looked at whether the lawsuit was going to be dismissed. I said yes.”


You should read your own stuff.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 



Maybe you need to read it again.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
This is easy to figure out if the powers that be want him to be born in Hawaii he would be born in Hawaii. With the money and power behind him anything is possible. I promise you if he was actually found to be born in Kenya nothing would happen he would still be President. Money and Power is the name of the game. ^Y^



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Just sayin-

I hear this stuff all the time - wanting Hawaii to give up the birth certificate. But if a person was really serious about finding out the truth, why not try to use the FOIA to try to get any info from the US consulate/embassy in Kenya. Usually people register as living in a foreign country in case of emergency (civil unrest, war, natural disaster) and need to be evacuated. Anyone ever try to look to see if and when the mother was registered in Kenya? Anyone ever try to find out if there was a "consular report of birth abroad" filed? Might be a better unthought of route to try to dig the truth out........................



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Here's your FACT.

Up until 1968, the standard term for all Africans was "negro". This fit with the absolute secular scientific teaching of the day which notes the world has 3 races in Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid.

If one still today searches enough death certificates in the 50 United States, you will find listed on them the term NEGRO or NEGROID.

If in 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.

Now that you have read my post, You prove it isn't true. waiting....

No mater, you are easily duped by the true power behind the Obama regime. We will only see what "they" want us to see. It is up to us to either accept it or fight it. I guess you will be a turncoat when America falls from grace and blame those that question authority instead of blindly following orders.

Critical thinking, BAD.....Just follow the orders and all will be better.......



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirric
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.


Just wanted to say "wow" great job( "african"/ "black"/ v "negro") any tingler wanto take thatpoint on?

We get lost( I do any way: " produce this", "you produce this first " "nun uh... show me yours first") quibbling over periods and crossed 't's" when the real issue is not." Does he have a valid pieceof paper on record?"
But:
1)what is the constitutional definition of "Natural born citizen"?
2) Where was the man born?
3) What was the citizenship of both biological parents?I think it matters under the strict( natural-born) definition.
4) does he meet the requirement?
Bing bada bing bing...Done.

Plenty of time to discuss What to do about it After the FACTS are established.

Facts should scare no man they just are and can't be changed.
IF This is all hyped B.S.? Whoops...we fight the Obama socialist agenda for America with repeals and legal challenges.
IFThere is something to this: Congress discusses impeachment . we citizens proceed to a grand jury to gather all the other rats..

No need for violence or divisive name calling .
Andsend the gd U.N packing backto the Hague where their "global citizen" ideas fit right in.

edit on 9-1-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

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.


Well now you've done it you made go read a bit:

What is Executive Privilege and Where Does it Come From?

The Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. Presidents have long claimed, however, that the constitutional principle of separation of powers implies that the Executive Branch has a privilege to resist certain encroachments by Congress and the judiciary, including some requests for information.

For example, in 1796, President Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with England. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Accordingly, Washington provided the documents to the Senate but not the House.

Eleven years later, the issue of executive privilege arose in court. Counsel for Aaron Burr, on trial for treason, asked the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum--an order requiring the production of documents and other tangible items--against President Thomas Jefferson, who, it was thought, had in his possession a letter exonerating Burr.

After hearing several days of argument on the issue, Chief Justice John Marshall issued the order commanding Jefferson to produce the letter. Marshall observed that the Sixth Amendment right of an accused to compulsory process contains no exception for the President, nor could such an exception be found in the law of evidence. In response to the government's suggestion that disclosure of the letter would endanger public safety, Marshall concluded that, if true, this claim could furnish a reason for withholding it, but that the court, rather than the Executive Branch alone, was entitled to make the public safety determination after examining the letter.

Jefferson complied with Marshall's order. However, Jefferson continued to deny the authority of the court to issue it, insisting that his compliance was voluntary. And that pattern persists to the present. Thus, President Clinton negotiated the terms under which he appeared before Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury, rather than simply answering a subpoena directing him to appear.


writ.news.findlawcom...

Supremes ruled:" Justice Marshall observed that the Sixth Amendment right of an accused to compulsory process contains no exception for the President, nor could such an exception be found in the law of evidence

Hence the executive is NOT above such laws.
Can you say "yard time today is 0930 prisoner Lakin..."
edit on 9-1-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
I am not sure what you mean. I have seen the real one. It is online. Are you suggesting that makes it ok to then move on to accepting fake ones like this for something or what?


No, you haven't seen the 'real one' online at all. What you have seen is a certification that a certificate exists. It's a computer produced piece of paper. As states have become more automated they have moved from the labor-intensive method of actually making a photocopy of the birth certificate along with a notarized stamp and signature that says it is a true copy to a more automated process that spits out a 'certification' in far less time than the old method.

Although you may not remember it as you probably weren't paying attention at the time Obama had his "birth certificate" up on his web site when he was a candidate for the nomination. It was a "real" birth certificate, but no less than three document experts judged it to be a forgery, likely made from his younger sister's certificate. That has, of course, long since disappeared, never happened; what are you talking about?

This whole controversy could be EASILY solved if Obama just said, "All right. Enough of this nonsense. I hereby authorize the release of the original certificate." The fact that he hasn't done that and has instead attempted to bury the issue, along with his college transcripts, passport records, and information on how he managed to pay for a Harvard education, is what is causing the problems now.

Having said that, I doubt that the above is a real certificate either. This is the third foreign certificate I have seen. There's quite a bit of incentive for someone to knock out a forgery these days. Unless someone in the state of Hawaii has the guts to send the dope to WikiLeaks or something, we'll probably never know the real scoop.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


I stand corrected and concede error. I'm no constitutional expert but realize the importance of interpretation / precedent.

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest." --Unknown

I'm here to learn new things. Thanks for proving me wrong. I'm may be many things, but I strive NOT to be dishonest.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
For a few bills you to could get a US birth certificate...from Guam.

Hawaii was in the birth certificate for sale business before them. Money's money.


His real Kenyan birth certificate says Barry Soetoro. He used self determination and determined himself a muslim when he came of age and changed his name.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
you have to take it one step further, you have to travel to hawaii on his next vacation and follow him on the beach.

hopefully he'll step on some mud and you can take a plaster molding of his feet and compare it to this footprint.

when the secret service stop beating you, u can publish your findings and become the next great investigative reporter who will be remembered for the rest of history as the man that brought down the president.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The "birth certificate" says Barack Hussein Obama II. Who is Barack H. Obama I?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
if you are referring to the POTUS, yes, i demand legitimate proof of the "natural born", Constitutional requirement

All these demands and lawsuits from birthers suffer from one huge, constitutional, problem: this is hard to swallow for some, but nowhere in the Constitution, or federal law, says you — a private citizen — can see the President’s (or the President-elect’s) birth certificate.

First, there are privacy laws concerning everyone’s — not just the President’s — vital records (the original records). Some birthers wish to indulge in some conspiracy theory that the records can’t be release because of “national security” or “because Obama has spent millions to keep the original records hidden.” Everyone’s vital records are protected, by default, and only the owner can release, or order release, those records. You don’t have to order, invoke national security, or be the President, for your records to be protected.

Second, I find it curious that the birthers point to the Constitution as the justification behind their demands, “it’s in the Constitution that the President must be a natural born citizen” — and that is absolutely correct — but are apparently either oblivious or selectively ignoring the parts in the Constitution that place the burden of that check on Congress.

As per the Constitution (Article II & 12th Amendment) and federal law (3 USC Sec. 15) it’s Congress’ responsibility to make sure the candidates before it are eligible. Congress certified Obama without a single objection. And, as per the Constitution, it is only Congress that can (forcefully) remove a sitting President.

If Obama is not a natural born citizen as many of you claim, then only Congress has the authority to (1) investigate and determine his natural born citizen status and (2) in case he is not eligible, to remove him from office.

Lawsuits are, ab initio, doomed to failure, as it is already specified in US law who has the authority to certify and (forcefully) remove the President, and it’s only the legislative branch, not the courts.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join