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.
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
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.
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
Does this surprise you, that what's issued within the last 4 years isn't the same as what was issued in 1961?
Originally posted by SilentKillah
Never seen anything like what you've posted. I have 3 kids all born within the last 4 years.
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.
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.
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........
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Does this surprise you, that what's issued within the last 4 years isn't the same as what was issued in 1961?
Originally posted by SilentKillah
Never seen anything like what you've posted. I have 3 kids all born within the last 4 years.
Because it doesn't surprise me.
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Does this surprise you, that what's issued within the last 4 years isn't the same as what was issued in 1961?
Originally posted by SilentKillah
Never seen anything like what you've posted. I have 3 kids all born within the last 4 years.
Because it doesn't surprise me.
Originally posted by GhostLancer
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?
The point is that the most important factor is whether or not the parents are US citizens, not where the child is born.
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.
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.
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?