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.

 

Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate

page: 13
69
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You stated before that birthers do not demand the original long form birth certificate, and yet you continiously go on and on about Obama releasing it. It is abit silly, and you are going around in circles.
So you were mistaken about Fukino stating anything about Kapiolani?

And the previous governor of Hawaii was also mistaken about that?

Yes, I guess people can be mistaken, including you and me.

Does that include Fukino? What if Fukino is mistaken?

But I have to object once again to your insertion of the word "original", you're making that up.

It's "long form birth certificate" the word "original" isn't part of that, but you keep trying to add it, for whatever your agenda is.
edit on 19-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
This all seems strange to me, the *entire issue* about his birth certificate. Here's why...

1. To get a driver's license, one must have some proof of who one is. Birth certificate.
2. To get a passport, one must have some proof of who one is. Birth certificate.
3. To join the military or serve in public office, one must have some proof of who one is. Birth certificate.
4. To get a social security card, one must have proof of who one is. Birth certificate.
5. To get any form of security clearance, which I imagine most senators possess at least a SECRET clearance, one must have proof of who one is. Birth certificate.

How then, can a person get a social security card without a birth certificate? How then, can a person get a driver's license without a birth certificate? How then, can a person get elected as a state senator without a birth certificate? How then, can a person get vetted through the EXTENSIVE obstacle course and background investigation required for a CANDIDATE for the Presidency without a birth certificate? How then, can said candidate GET ELECTED without a birth certificate?

The average citizen needs a birth certificate for SO MUCH. It's almost inconceiveable that someone could get through life without having had a birth certificate. Let alone get elected President.

With all of that in mind, I imagine that there is a real birth certificate somewhere. Maybe it was, as can happen, misplaced or unintentionally destroyed or discarded. The fact that President Obama HAS a social security card, HAS a driver's license, HAS a passport, HAS a security clearance, WAS elected to senatorial office and WAS elected to the Presidency speaks volumes for the legitimacy of his citizenship.

Had his citizenship been in question at all during any of those acquisitions and triumphs, he would not have made it to the next stage. He did. He is in the oval office, and anyone who picks at straws to try to take that away from him is a sore, desperate loser. LOSER. Sure, President Obama may not win the next election, but he won the last election. And, at the very least, we can say that he did really WIN the election, and did not STEAL the election from another (true) victor like a previous president might have done in a past election. There were no "hanging chits" or partisan judgement that led to Obama's victory. He didn't have to steal. He outright won. So get over it and accept that he is our President. Next election? Who knows. But, for now, leg it go and find a better way to spend your time.
edit on 19-1-2011 by GhostLancer because: Typo



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skippy1138
I carry my birth certificate in my wallet.

It's generally recommended that one not carry their birth certificate and social security card in their wallet, but rather keep it in a safe place and only take it with you when you have a need to. (for reasons of identity theft)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


There are tons of things that every person is not required to do, but should. Assuming a position of leadership places more of an obligation on the should side of the equation than someone who is not, simply by virtue of them holding a position that by its definition requires a level of trust to hold effectively.

The President is in a position where he should always seek to unite the people of the country. When you have doubts about his eligibility to hold his office and he is doing nothing to quell those doubts, he is not only not doing his utmost to put those concerns to rest, he is actually increasing them, along with the anxiety and frustration that the failure to put this issue to rest cause.

Now you can put down chapter and verse the legitimacy of the document retention and release protocols that may exist in a given jurisdiction all you want. I'm impressed with your knowledge of the subject.

Simply put, there are more than a couple of people in this country that have concerns about the man's eligibility to hold the office of President. As such, they will never be united behind him as a leader. Now for certain, some of them never will be, but a good number of them would drop the matter entirely and some of them could well be supporters of his.

It is not as if there are no reasons to believe that things related to this matter are crystal clear.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer
With all of that in mind, I imagine that there is a real birth certificate somewhere. Maybe it was, as can happen, misplaced or unintentionally destroyed or discarded. The fact that President Obama HAS a social security card, HAS a driver's license, HAS a passport, HAS a security clearance, WAS elected to senatorial office and WAS elected to the Presidency speaks volumes for the legitimacy of his citizenship.

Had his citizenship been in question at all during any of those acquisitions and triumphs, he would not have made it to the next stage.

The debate isn't about whether he's a citizen, it's about whether or not he's a specific type of citizen called a "natural born citizen".

None of those activities you describe except the presidency require the citizen to be a natural born citizen, as far as I know.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Sunday, June 27, 2004

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations. The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative
—AP

Copyright © 2004 . The Standard Ltd


2004

From Kenyan-born Senate wanna-be, to POTUS born in Hawaii

records seal E.O.

Blind foresight vs hindsight being 20/20

Oh the wicked web of lies we read.

In this day and age, truth gets buried like a corpse. No viewing, no funeral.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So you were mistaken about Fukino stating anything about Kapiolani?


Yes, it was actually the governor at the time, my mistake. Fukino only confirmed his original birth certificate in existence and his birth:


“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i 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.”

hawaii.gov...


But I have to object once again to your insertion of the word "original", you're making that up.


Nope, it is clear according to Hawaii law. There are only two birth certificates in the state of Hawaii, the Certificate of birth (original birth certificate) and the Certification of birth (short form birth certificate). I do not understand why you backing away from the term original as this clearly what you are demanding. Maybe you are differentiating yourself from other birthers? I don't know.


It's "long form birth certificate" the word "original" isn't part of that,


Right:


The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.

hawaii.gov...

Yep, but go on please.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


There are tons of things that every person is not required to do, but should. Assuming a position of leadership places more of an obligation on the should side of the equation than someone who is not,


While that may be true, the birther issue is not of the same nature of other issues that a person in leadership would be required to do. To start, no president before has been required to present his original birth certificate, and there is no evidence pointing to why this president should be treated differently, aside from the "questions" from opposing voters, which is not uncommon at all. Conspiracy theories about this president will not die so long as he remains in power, there will always be people who will dislike this man regardless. Obama releasing his birth certificate will not change your view of him or his presidency, it will only feed your unsatisfaction with the man for a list of things.


simply by virtue of them holding a position that by its definition requires a level of trust to hold effectively


This would assume that the person holding that position must reach a level of trust with everybody, which is simply outside of reality.


The President is in a position where he should always seek to unite the people of the country.


Releasing his original birth certificate will not change the gridlock in DC and it will not change the strong social and political issues people hold with the president. The birth certificate will only cater to a section of the conservative agenda, it will not solve the relevant issues in DC.

I agree, I would love to see the people unite, and I would love to see compromise in DC, this birther issue is not the key to solving this problem. It is only be a brief "fix" to a fraction of issues and suspicions folks hold.


Simply put, there are more than a couple of people in this country that have concerns about the man's eligibility


And this will always be the case for many many presidencies. Millions of conservatives held distrust about the clintons during the 90's. The fact is, there is division in this country, and it involves millions of people. The fact is, we cannot always rely on the size of people to justify a view or a belief or a suspicion. We only have the facts infront of us to rely on, something the birther conspiracy holds none of.


Now for certain, some of them never will be, but a good number of them would drop the matter entirely


Which is rather silly for a number of reasons;

You admit him releasing his original birth certificate will not kill the conspiracy
You neglect the fact that many birthers hold other conspiracies and political issues about the man

I am sure birthers can survive without a long form birth certificate for the next what? 2 or 6 years.
edit on 20-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
but later Fukino said they had a "birth certificate" which she later changed to "vital records". That seems pretty odd to me.

This is a non-issue, entirely of your own making. Vital records are the original records. Fukino probably specificaly mentioned vital records in the naive hope that it shut up the birthers, because as I’ve told you before the birthers claimed the birth certificate could be amended and raised questions regarding Fukino’s first statement, which referred to birth certificate.

Now Fukino explicitly tells you that the vital records were inspected and confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii. And now you’re making up this issue of the difference of language between the two statements.

And you say you’re not a birther?


McCain openly provided his long form birth certificate for all to see, and the issue of his eligibility was debated openly with the source document being available. He wasn't trying to hide anything.

This is not true. He provided the birth certificate due to law suit.

Citizen McCain

Legal cases have been filed in at least three states--New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and California--challenging McCain's eligibility for the presidency. You can read the New Hampshire filing, by a 49-year-old computer programmer named Fred Hollander, here.
The birth certificates we got to see are from the Hollander suit.

Further, this article contradicts what you’re claiming—

The McCain campaign has declined to publicly release his birth certificate, but a senior campaign official showed me a copy.

My opinion is that McCain is probably a natural born citizen — and not because he was born in a “US military hospital” — but I’m simply raising this point because, as it’s been shown, you claim you know for sure about McCain, but the truth is that you don’t.

You claimed McCain willingly and openly shared his birth certificate, and it’s demonstratively false. You then quoted an article saying the status of McCain is not entirely well defined, even though we have all the information.

I didn’t see any of you making any threads about whether McCain was eligible or not. And your justification for the Obama threads has been “because unlike McCain, we don’t know for sure.” Turns out you don’t actually know about McCain, the uncertainty in his case simply just doesn’t bother as it does with Obama.

But guess what, your personal doubts and feelings don’t entitle you to see anyone’s birth certificate. Tough.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skippy1138
I carry my birth certificate in my wallet.I can produce it in 12 seconds for anyone who wants to see it.I have nothing to hide.Yet Obama has spent thousands of dollars to prevent people from looking into his birth, his college years, on and on and on...
WHY?


What is your source for stating that Obama has spent money for the purpose of hiding his birth certificate? Are you saying that I have something to hide if I don't keep my birth certificate in my wallet? I guess I must have something to hide.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
How did this clown make it into office....


He was elected by a majority of Americans with in excess of 10 million more votes than his competition.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 

Gee someone doesn't know a rhetorical question when they see one



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


Because there is no evidence Obama is spending thousands or millions or whatever other figure you fellas decide to pluck out of nothing. Neither is he hiding. "Hiding" requires evidence he needs to hide.


He has to pay lawyers to defend him in court against the lawsuits brought. He has yet to produce a birth certificate. The hospital says they have it on record. So, I think the ball is in Obama's court.



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

Originally posted by dalloway


And by the way, "Obama came from nowhere" is possibly one of the laziest "birther" attack statements I have ever seen.
edit on 19-1-2011 by dalloway because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2011 by dalloway because: clarity


What he probably meant by Obama coming from nowhere is that he came from out of nowhere. I'm from Illinois. I remember Obama running for State Senate and then US Senate, and I'll tell you it surprised me when he even considered running for President so soon. To win after being in politics for such a short time amounts to coming from nowhere.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by Skippy1138
I carry my birth certificate in my wallet.I can produce it in 12 seconds for anyone who wants to see it.I have nothing to hide.Yet Obama has spent thousands of dollars to prevent people from looking into his birth, his college years, on and on and on...
WHY?


What is your source for stating that Obama has spent money for the purpose of hiding his birth certificate? Are you saying that I have something to hide if I don't keep my birth certificate in my wallet? I guess I must have something to hide.


You have to prove to McDonald's that you are a citizen before you can work for them. I think every candidate should have to prove to the people that they meet the qualifications to run. This should be a lesson learned and new laws in every state enacted that will cover things like this so it doesn't happen again. If anything it's a black eye on America for all the trouble it's been.
edit on 1/20/2011 by PhantomLimb because: clarity



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


Because there is no evidence Obama is spending thousands or millions or whatever other figure you fellas decide to pluck out of nothing. Neither is he hiding. "Hiding" requires evidence he needs to hide.


He has to pay lawyers to defend him in court against the lawsuits brought.


Out of the 71 birther lawsuits, Obama's lawyer only appeared to 3 of them. On those occasions his lawyer claimed he was working "pro bono". I am well aware that Obama spent somewhere around $800,000 towards lawyers fees however the bulk of this was to FEC and other campaign and election fees. This is rather common among presidencies as bush himself spent $100,000's on lawyer fees during his presidential run as did Clinton. It ain't cheap to run for president.


He has yet to produce a birth certificate.


He has. You just don't accept it, and nobody can do anything to change that. It is purely your personal view on the matter.


The hospital says they have it on record.


What hospital said they have no record of his birth? care to elaborate on this further for us? Dunke.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

McCain openly provided his long form birth certificate for all to see, and the issue of his eligibility was debated openly with the source document being available. He wasn't trying to hide anything.

This is not true. He provided the birth certificate due to law suit.

Citizen McCain

Legal cases have been filed in at least three states--New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and California--challenging McCain's eligibility for the presidency. You can read the New Hampshire filing, by a 49-year-old computer programmer named Fred Hollander, here.
The birth certificates we got to see are from the Hollander suit.

Further, this article contradicts what you’re claiming—

The McCain campaign has declined to publicly release his birth certificate, but a senior campaign official showed me a copy.
Ok your source indicates he was reluctant to show it, but he DID show it to reporters. I said he openly provided it, to settle the dispute, which he did, I didn't say he willingly provided it, since he was apparently reluctant at first.

But wasn't the Hollander suit dismissed for lack of standing? Just like the lawsuits for Obama to release his have been dismissed for lack of standing?

www.obamaconspiracy.org...

Fred Hollander brought a lawsuit (dismissed for lack of standing) asserting that John McCain was not eligible to be president because he was not born in the United States.
So are you claiming that a judge's order required McCain to release it?

And if not then didn't McCain provide it of his own volition, or he could have refused to provide it as Obama has refused to provide his despite the lawsuits? Now I'll admit there has been media pressure on both candidates though it was greater on McCain due to him being born in Panama, so I thought it was more media pressure McCain caved into.

But if you can prove your claim that "The birth certificates we got to see are from the Hollander suit." then please do so, because you haven't proven it yet. I could be wrong about him caving to media pressure, so if you provide be with a link to the Judge's order requiring McCain to release his birth certificate, I'll admit that.

Presidential candidate Alan Keyes challenged the eligibility of both Obama and McCain in court. I can understand why he did it.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Presidential candidate Alan Keyes challenged the eligibility of both Obama and McCain in court. I can understand why he did it.


Alan Keys ran against Obama for the senate and got his ass handed to him for number of reasons in 2003/2004. Alan keys was also known Reagan backer and is a staunch conservative. You understand why he pushed for a lawsuit you say? Maybe you hold more confidence for him, after all, he shares your views.
edit on 20-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Also,Montana v. Kennedy(Court case)"Congress very specifically eliminated the ability of courts to change the rules of naturalization of aliens." WHAT IS STATED ON....THE INS WEBSITE IS MORE RELEVANT BECAUSE THE INS SITE EXPRESSES THE RULING OF CONGRESS!!!!

Also, there is a confusion between: Natural Born and Native Born?! among the Birthers!

Again,even the Supreme court backed off many times when it came to declaring someone a "natural born" citizen because this decision is left to Congress and therefore left to INS !!! The congressional decisions is stated in their body of law - INA:ACT# !!!



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
That's a good find from Hawaii homelands, however I still argue that use of the word "original" in that context is ambiguous, though I retract my claim that you're making it up, you did provide a source, so thanks for that.

"Original" can also carry the connotation of the single original document, but they are using "original" in a much broader context which implies the "original format" and not the original document, because my understanding from this article is they provided the long form birth certificates even as replacement copies up until about 1980.

So let's say in 1975 a Hawaiian born person loses their original birth certificate in a fire.

If the original was really destroyed, they can't be provided with another original, only a copy. But Hawaii homelands is referring to the copy they provided in 1975 to replace the destroyed original, as the "original birth certificate", right?

So I still say it's confusing to call a copy of a birth certificate, the original birth certificate, which is what DHHL is doing.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join