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: 15
69
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WinnieDaWho
From Urban Dictionary

Birther
A racist sore loser who can't deal with having a black president so they make up absurd conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's birth certificate.

These nutjobs actually believe that there has been a conspiracy going back 48 years to fake Barack Obama's birth certificate. Apparently they had a crystal ball and knew that this black child (born in the days of segregation) would someday run for President. All I can say is LOL


Not true. It would be convenient if it were that easy, but I am a birther that voted FOR Obama. I don't want to see him impeached, although I do hope there is a suitable Republican candidate to beat him in 2012.

Nobody is saying there was a conspiracy 48 years ago. The scenario we suppose is that he was born in Kenya, but shortly thereafter he was brought to Hawaii. His family realized there could be problems with travel and benefits and important US privileges, so they got the proper forms and filed them in Hawaii to obtain a birth certificate. It was not hard at the time, people have posted the requirements in this thread. It would just have taken his mother filling out the proper paperwork. Her motivations had nothing to do with a conspiracy or a presidency or anything else. She was just taking the appropriate actions as an American mother of a newborn child. This is why a short-form certificate exists, it was the proper certificate for the forms she filled out. If he had been born in a Hawaiian hospital, there would be a long form certificate with the hospital and physician listed on it, and the short form would also have the hospital and physician on it.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
If it is ever proved that Obama was never eligible to be the president, wouldn't it nullify everything he signed or enacted ? Undoing 2 yrs of legislation would probably bring civil unrest on a scale not seen in the US in our lifetime.

On the other hand, There may be such sympathy built up by the media that there will be an outcry to further tamper with the constitution. This could possibly pave the way for a Chinese President of the USA.

Its a lose, lose situation.......It would sell alot of newspapers........



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Oh Wait!
The Hawaii Gov says that the record of birth is in the archives!!!

It's in the archives

But of course, this will not be sufficient for those who are convinced that Obama was born elsewhere.

The word of anyone who says he was born elsewhere is irrefutable but the word of a governor is always in doubt.

I think this is a dead issue. Get over it.


Thank you! So what it looks like is WDN didn't quote all that he said and made it seem as though he couldn't verify. Typical... and also typical of those who are set on believeing what they want to believe the stories that point to their views rather than what's actually out there.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirric

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The certificate would look like this:


Yet another lie, it would look like the first one, they no longer issue the 2nd one - as you know, but ignore!



The lie is this and You know it:

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".

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

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.

The CLOB has been made up. It is not true and stop saying that "they have released Obama's certificate" Because IT IS AN OBVIOUS FORGERY!

Sirric


Who are you to tell what was on the mind of a nurse when she was told by Obama's mother that the father was from Africa? To me it sounds like she thought... he's from Africa, he must be African and therefore wrote that down and it was placed in the record as that. Fail.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Regarding the Certificate of Live Birth placed on-line by or on behalf of Pres. Obama: Why would they black out the 'Certificate Number'? That makes no sense unless you are trying to prevent validaton of when the document was created. That is, the number would have to be in an appropriate timeframe for that sequence number (either at time of birth, shortly after birth, or at any when a new short form certificate was requested for whatever reason). Why black it out? There may well be something on a long-form certificate that the Pres. would not want made public (or perhaps it is not available, for no negative reason) but why cover up a certificate number? It means nothing in and of itself? Why protect a valid certificate sequence number? It makes no sense. (And I do believe it would been nearly inpossible for the Pres. NOT to have been born in Hawaii based on the known movements of his mother at the time.)
edit on 20-1-2011 by questions10 because: Error corrections.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


Why are you guys arguing a moot point?

Yes, the originally issued birth certificate is probably in the archives. It exists, nobody is disputing that. The problem is that the originally issued birth certificate is a "short-form" and it does not list a hospital or attending physician. It is not sufficient to prove his place of birth. If he had been born in a Hawaiian hospital, there would be a different original birth certificate, a long form, and it would list the hospital and physician.

Nobody doubts the existence of an archived original. It just isn't sufficient, unless it is the long form issued in a hospital. See my post above, the original they have on file was easily obtained, even if he was born in Kenya.

In order to prove his place of birth, there has to be corroborating evidence of the short form, or there has to be an original long form.

Instead of corroborating evidence, we get Kenyan evidence that claims he was born in a hospital there. Instead of an explanation from Obama about a home birth, we get lies that he was born in a hospital. If he was born in a hospital, the short-form would be a synopsis of the longer form, and it would list the hospital; it does not, therefore he was not, therefore the story is a lie, and without further corroboration, he is ineligible as a "natural born citizen" because his father was not a citizen, and he can't prove his place of birth.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by goingsouth
 


We don't need to worry about being presided over by the Chinese. Worse yet, we are currently OWNED by the Chinese.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Where Soetoro/Obama was born is a red herring.
His father was a British subject and he inherited that status when he was born - where ever he was born.
That makes him a dual citizen and that means he cannot be natural born and therefore under the US constitution is ineligible for the office of President.
Why are so many Americans in denial of this basic fact.
Because they are so` bigoted about his race and party?.
Had he been a white Republican with a constitutional question mark the same apologists would be baying for his blood.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKillah
Never seen anything like what you've posted. I have 3 kids all born within the last 4 years.
Does this surprise you, that what's issued within the last 4 years isn't the same as what was issued in 1961?

Because it doesn't surprise me.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by GhostLancer
Ahhh, I see. Still, if you are the child of US citizens, you can be born anywhere in the world and you are still a "natural born citizen."

This is not entirely correct. The Supreme Court never ruled specifically on the question of whether persons born abroad are natural-born citizens.



Think about military folks making babies while overseas and there is no "American" hospital, just the local hospital. That baby is an American citizen, considered "natural born," and can run for the office of the Presidency.

That baby is considered a US citizen — not necessarily natural-born citizen; see above — not because he was born in a military hospital. Birth in military or diplomatic facilities abroad does not confer US citizenship by virtue of birth.

That baby would be a US citizen by virtue of a provision in 8 USC 1401, under the (c), (d) or (e) paragraphs. This legislation was introduced initially by Nationality Act of 1940, and has subsequently been amended by different Acts, such as the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, for example.

Perhaps "not entirely correct" if we were splitting hairs in a legal battle in a courtroom. But, I bet there would be a LOT of veterans who would disagree about their child being able to run for President. If what you are suggesting is true, then the fact that a US citizen serving his country in the military overseas would NEGATE HIS CHILD'S ABILITY TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT? I think that the spirit of the law would acquiesce to the fact that YES that child when grown to proper age would FULLY AND WHOLY AND LEGALLY be able to run for president, otherwise we cripple the rights of our active duty (or activated) military serving this very country overseas by saying their children cannot run for president because they weren't "natural born." I think that would not hold up in the supreme court, should a case ever make it there. If there is any ambiguity that was not solidified in the link you provided, I would surely bet that the Supreme Court would rule that YES, those children born abroad to military folks (and even any US citizens who happen to be abroad) would be able to run.

Of course, if someone hates Obama, and this is being argued now, that person is likely to employ any ambiguity against the current President for personal and/or political reasons. The point is that the most important factor is whether or not the parents are US citizens, not where the child is born. I wonder, just out of curiosity, that if a Republican were in office and there was a similar situation, if the arguments would be this contentious and heated and ongoing. I think people who are unhappy with Obama need merely focus on casting a vote in the next election rather than waste their time splitting hairs, lancing windmills and trying to start a revolt. Wouldn't you rather be sipping tea than causing a lot of unnecessary turmoil? If it's that important, then cast a vote during the next election.

Also, realize that no matter who sits in the "hot seat" (the Presidency), the agenda of the global elite and super wealthy is going to be forwarded no matter what any of us says or does. Really. This is the reality we face. Think about it: these wealthy bankers and elitists throw BIRTHDAY PARTIES for their daughters that cost 7 million dollars, okay. The President only makes $400,000 + some perks. The global elite might spend that much in a single evening in Monte Carlo or wherever they choose to hang out for the night. Financially, our government has been bought and paid for some time ago, why else do you think most of the laws that are now passed are pro-corporation (as in big corp)? The laws are not to protect citizens from big business, it is to protect big business from citizens who've been wronged (or are to be wronged in the future). And here we are, sniveling or defending over a birth certificate. Why not direct our energies elsewhere, where we might actually be able to share some good information and/or make a difference?

The end point is that the global elite ensure they have WHO THEY WANT in the hot seat. Just think about how many bankers and big corp personnel have been appointed to high level positions in the last seven administrations. No matter of heckling about a birth certificate is going to undo anything they have set into motion.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Where do you think that will leave ol' Barry from now on ? Ya know, due to this incompetent individual in the White House, his failures have really moved a lot more Americans to get more familiar with our country's Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. than just about any other government individual has. I will however, not miss him at all once he is eliminated from the government soon.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


Why are you guys arguing a moot point?

Yes, the originally issued birth certificate is probably in the archives. It exists, nobody is disputing that. The problem is that the originally issued birth certificate is a "short-form" and it does not list a hospital or attending physician. It is not sufficient to prove his place of birth. If he had been born in a Hawaiian hospital, there would be a different original birth certificate, a long form, and it would list the hospital and physician.

Nobody doubts the existence of an archived original. It just isn't sufficient, unless it is the long form issued in a hospital. See my post above, the original they have on file was easily obtained, even if he was born in Kenya.

In order to prove his place of birth, there has to be corroborating evidence of the short form, or there has to be an original long form.

Instead of corroborating evidence, we get Kenyan evidence that claims he was born in a hospital there. Instead of an explanation from Obama about a home birth, we get lies that he was born in a hospital. If he was born in a hospital, the short-form would be a synopsis of the longer form, and it would list the hospital; it does not, therefore he was not, therefore the story is a lie, and without further corroboration, he is ineligible as a "natural born citizen" because his father was not a citizen, and he can't prove his place of birth.


What I know is that if I had more important thigs to deal with such as running for presidency and listening to all of these things that my advisors were telling me... whatever a presidential candidate does as I don't know. Or even being President, some silly rumors that I wasn't born in the place that my birth certificate states would be the last thing on my mind. Not attempting to avoid it purposely... but I've got better things to do with my time than get a different copy of a document that I already have which served it's purpose all of my life... lol.

I really don't understand how you say that it's not sufficient... sufficient enough for who? Was educated using it, got a job with it, got married with it, anything else you name. Now some nobodies are saying "We need more"... please. It would be the last thing on my mind.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by goingsouth
If it is ever proved that Obama was never eligible to be the president, wouldn't it nullify everything he signed or enacted ? Undoing 2 yrs of legislation would probably bring civil unrest on a scale not seen in the US in our lifetime.

On the other hand, There may be such sympathy built up by the media that there will be an outcry to further tamper with the constitution. This could possibly pave the way for a Chinese President of the USA.

Its a lose, lose situation.......It would sell alot of newspapers........


Maybe civil unrest is exactly what they seek. A nice dose of Martial Law to rid them of opponents and distract us from their wanton looting of our country. It is awfully difficult to look at their actions and think they are doing what is best for the country, or even trying to. An economic meltdown combined with massive civil unrest seems like a pretty good recipe for some UN intervention to further their global agenda.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by anumohi
 


Oh my I would never advocate death for anything other than murder. The only time I think it is ok to kill someone else is self defense or if someone killed a child or person in cold premeditative murder.

I don't think Obama is guilty of treason but of lying maybe. If he did lie he should be punished but not fatally!



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by SilentKillah
Never seen anything like what you've posted. I have 3 kids all born within the last 4 years.
Does this surprise you, that what's issued within the last 4 years isn't the same as what was issued in 1961?

Because it doesn't surprise me.


Doesn't surprise me at all! That's my point. When my daughter runs for Presidency... she won't have to provide some document that doesn't exist because President Obama did and that's the only way to verfy eligibility. It's not the only way... and what was previously provided has done it's job. Now we have the Governor's verification... but still not enough because every person with a doubt won't stop the nonsense until they see it themselves.

Even still it won't stop... some other conspiracy will arise saying it was forged because the MD on the certificate has a Chinese last name and the first Chinese person recorded in Hawaii was 1968 or something similar. Or it will go back to his dual citizenship thing which I don't understand. Nobody will be satisfied with My President and it saddens me deeply being that I am a civilian that still deploys in aid of our troops in combat that are there to follow the President's orders in order to maintain our Constitution.


edit on 20-1-2011 by SilentKillah because: Inaccurately quoted.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 



I really don't understand how you say that it's not sufficient... sufficient enough for who? Was educated using it, got a job with it, got married with it, anything else you name. Now some nobodies are saying "We need more"... please. It would be the last thing on my mind.


It is sufficient for all of those things you list, but it is not sufficient to run for president. It isn't even sufficient to work for the FBI or Secret Service. They demand a higher level of proof for those sensitive positions. It would be sufficient if it listed the hospital and had an attending Doctor's signature. That would prove that he was born in that place at that time. Unfortunately, without those things, the document is insufficient and needs corroboration.

If he were applying to work for the Secret Service to protect the president, they would not accept this document, so why should it be acceptable for the president himself?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by SilentKillah
Never seen anything like what you've posted. I have 3 kids all born within the last 4 years.
Does this surprise you, that what's issued within the last 4 years isn't the same as what was issued in 1961?

Because it doesn't surprise me.


I was going to post something similar.. my BC looks exactly like the one you posted as the long one.. but my name is spelled wrong. HAHA! Its because youre speaking with younger folks and nothing really existed before the 70's-80's.
They need to be reminded that back then nurses and secretaries filled out the BCs and not the parents of the child... hence my name being wrong and my race listed as what some would consider a racial slur.

Also the negro thing is incorrect as well.. there were other terms used such as "colored" in the 50's and 60's on BCs. The whole "african" being listed as race being the smoking gun is nonsense. His mother rmay have said he was from Africa.. some dope filing out the BC put african.

This stuff is what really drives me up the wall about even discussing or getting involved in the birther issue. If you give facts they are disregarded and youre called an Obama supporter, liar, or worse. I don thtink the guy is being honest, but if youre going to look for a conspiracy at LEAST know what you are talking about and the facts. Things that happen now are not necessarily the way they were done back when Obama ( and I )were born or Gods sake. The long form should show what was on the original before any modifications which you CAN do legally such as name changes and etc. He changed his name enough and his complete identity.. that swhere Id start looking. His school transcripts would show an original name versus what he is using now as well. No one can find his transcripts?? Hmm I wonder why..



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer
Perhaps "not entirely correct" if we were splitting hairs in a legal battle in a courtroom.

Maybe the details and distinctions are of no consequence to you, but they matter when it comes to law, and my post only addressed the current status of the law and Supreme Court jurisprudence.



But, I bet there would be a LOT of veterans who would disagree about their child being able to run for President. If what you are suggesting is true, then the fact that a US citizen serving his country in the military overseas would NEGATE HIS CHILD'S ABILITY TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT?

No, I’m not suggesting that a children born abroad to US citizens shouldn’t be able to run for President, what I’m telling you is what is the current understanding of Supreme Court case law, and, right now, the status of those children is undetermined.

I have no objection to those children being able to run for President.


The point is that the most important factor is whether or not the parents are US citizens, not where the child is born.

That assumption is incorrect. As I already indicated on this post, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the underlying principle of common law is birthright citizenship, jus soli, or in other words, the place of birth is the principal factor, not the citizenship or nationality of the parents. That post explains that position quite clearly by quoting the opinion of the Court, I needn’t quote it again.

The Court also noted, however, that—

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution (...) contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Those children born abroad to US citizens, even if to US military personnel, even in US military or diplomatic facilities, are granted citizenship through an Act of Congress [8 USC 1401(c), (d) & (e)], not through the Constitution.

As the Court noted, if you are born within the jurisdiction of the United States, you don’t need naturalization, as you are a citizen at birth by mere fact of that birth — what’s usually understood to mean to be a “natural-born citizen.” From that follows that persons whose citizenship is granted through legislation or annexation of foreign territory, it is conferred to them by naturalization, since that’s the only other alternative contemplated by the Constitution.

So the question is if the persons whose citizenship was conferred through an Act of Congress or annexation of foreign territory (naturalization), at birth, are “natural-born citizens” like someone born in the jurisdiction of the United States.

My personal opinion is that they are, but the question is not as black and white as you make it out to be.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
It is sufficient for all of those things you list, but it is not sufficient to run for president. It isn't even sufficient to work for the FBI or Secret Service. They demand a higher level of proof for those sensitive positions.

You are operating under the assumption that the Secret Service or other agencies haven’t inspected Obama’s vital records. How do you know they didn’t check it when Obama received his security access? Hawaii’s statutes contemplate inspection by agencies on behalf of the registrant [HRS §338-18(b)(7)].



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SilentKillah
 



I really don't understand how you say that it's not sufficient... sufficient enough for who? Was educated using it, got a job with it, got married with it, anything else you name. Now some nobodies are saying "We need more"... please. It would be the last thing on my mind.


It is sufficient for all of those things you list, but it is not sufficient to run for president. It isn't even sufficient to work for the FBI or Secret Service. They demand a higher level of proof for those sensitive positions. It would be sufficient if it listed the hospital and had an attending Doctor's signature. That would prove that he was born in that place at that time. Unfortunately, without those things, the document is insufficient and needs corroboration.

If he were applying to work for the Secret Service to protect the president, they would not accept this document, so why should it be acceptable for the president himself?


First off... sorry as I haven't quite figured out how to edit the quotes so that I do not post within post etc.

as far as your saying that it's not credible for the FBI and Secret Service. Well I haven't any clue about the Secret Service. However I have a brother that is FBI... not a field agent and not sure exactly what he does, but his BC looks the same as mine. No doctor's name, no signiture. I truly believe you're mistaken by that comment. Furthermore I work in a classified job requiring security clearance for Department of Air Force. I think that due to the nature of what I deal with, I'd be a candidate to require that information if it were necessary. But instead... they conduct background checks. Look into the records themselves. Send people to talk to relatives, friends, neighbors, former associates. Had my clearance for 6 years and every once in a while I still get a facebook message from someone that I haven't spoken with in over 10 years saying they spoke with someone about me. Do you really think they didn't conduct this type of investigation on our president considereing he can come to my workplace if he wanted to? A simple piece of paper means nothing compared to what they can find out by talking to those that you've dealt with for years.




top topics



 
69
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join