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.

 

Hawaiian Senator said Obama not releasing long-form BC to hide identity or citizenship of his father

page: 15
37
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by GuyverUnit I
 





Bush haters didn't really get over it until his term ended. Just saying...


Bush haters never got over hating Bush.

We got over the stolen election quite quickly, especially after his second election.

But we never got over his fake religious politics, his crony-ism, his willful ignorance, and his lying his way into a war that cost hundreds of American lives and destroyed the economy.

And that's why I ask birthers: If he shows the long form will you vote for him? Because if not, then this whole birth certificate thing is just a mask for the fact that you can't challenge him on the issues.

Just sayin...


No, I would not vote for him, because, as a disclaimer here, although I have dabbled in the BC issue , it is not my primary reason for not voting for him. My primary reason is his radical Fabian Socialist/Marxist ideology of spreading the wealth and his Chicago style politics and cronyism and his disconnection from the American people. I might add, nor would I ever vote for any of the 70 members of Congress who are also members of DSA.
edit on 26-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AuranVector
 


He is equally white as well as black so therefore he cannot be said to solely negroid anyway! Obama's bloodlines whatever they are should appeal to both blacks and whites!



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SlyingFaucers
 




Now, let's take your purposeful misrepresentation of the facts out of this and let's see what the Hawaii Dept. of Health has to say about releasing vital records...



§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of ANY CERTIFICATE, OR THE CONTENTS OF ANY CERTIFICATE, OR ANY PART THEREOF. (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]



And what do sections ]338-16, 338-17, and 338-18 say are the requirements?

Also notice that the section you quoted and highlighted says "any part thereof".

The abstract COLB is compliant with this section.

Also notice 338-11:



§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health. In addition, the forms of death certificates shall require the individual’s social security number. The form and use of the certificates shall be subject to sections 338-16 to 338-18. [L 1949, c 327, §15; RL 1955, §57-14; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-11; am L 1997, c 293, §17]




edit on 26/4/2011 by rnaa because: correct missing markup tag



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 




In order to give up your US Citizenship - you MUST write the State Dept and request revocation. Do you have any proof this was done? IF he had Indonesian citizenship, that did NOT automatically revoke or invalidate his US citizenship (feel free to check the State Dept web site for details).


Not only but also... a minor CANNOT do this. And his parents cannot do it form him/her; nothing his parents did or did not do could deprive a minor child of his US Citizenship. Period.

Obama was in Indonesia between the ages of 5 and 10 (approximately). It is impossible that this could have happened.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by userid1
 




In order to give up your US Citizenship - you MUST write the State Dept and request revocation. Do you have any proof this was done? IF he had Indonesian citizenship, that did NOT automatically revoke or invalidate his US citizenship (feel free to check the State Dept web site for details).


Not only but also... a minor CANNOT do this. And his parents cannot do it form him/her; nothing his parents did or did not do could deprive a minor child of his US Citizenship. Period.

Obama was in Indonesia between the ages of 5 and 10 (approximately). It is impossible that this could have happened.


His mother would've had to file something called a "Renunciation Of Citizenship" with The US State Dept. for both her and Obama for which she never did and no record exists of it, once done it is very complicated to undo.

www.travel.state.gov...

A parent can file this on behalf of their child and is completely legal. One could live outside of the nation for 30 years and as long as this is not filed you still retain your full citizenship stateside but always remain subjectable to the jurisdiction and laws of the nation you are currently in. Say you travel to say, Europe, you are subjected to any and all local laws regardless where your citizenship or you hails from.

Can this item be put to bed as it's been beaten to death so many times it's getting old?
edit on 26-4-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by AuranVector
 





Nationality should have been filled in as "Kenyan" -- not the generic "African" -- Africa is a huge continent with many nations.


The fields on the long form certificate read 'Race of Father' and 'Race of Mother', not nationality.

Both fields are 100% self reported by the father and the mother and are free form, not selected from an approved list. I have seen one such with about 5 values separated by slashes.

There is, apparently, in the medical section, a field for the race of the newborn which must be selected from a standard set of values for statistical reporting. This medical section is not part of any Birth Certificate whether short, long, original, copy, archive, or mythical. There is no way that anyone will ever know what value was selected on the Presidents medical report. Period.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Here is a statement of Factcheck.org on Obama being Kenyan

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

It is still on the Fightthesmears website fightthesmears.com...

What does that mean? As a Kenyan native? Why don't they say he is a Native Born American? They say he never renounced his US citizenshp but that does not make him Natural Born.
edit on 26-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




Proof of citizenship and natural born citizenship are not the same, and you need to stop presenting it as such. Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate this, or is it just oversight on your part? A candidate for POTUS has to show he/she is natural born. The definition is stated already, a person born in the US or under US jurisdiction of citizen parents. And please note that the John Bingham definition says "citizen parents" not one citizen parent.


To which post and comment of mine are you objecting?

The requirement is a person born in the US AND (not 'or') under the jurisdiction of the United States.

The phrase "under the jurisdiction of the United States" means subject to the laws of the United States. This excludes diplomats, invading armies, and some Indians.

The President's published Birth Certificate is exactly proof of birth in the United States. His known background is proof that his parents were not diplomats, were not members of an invading army, and were not Indians. Thus natural born citizenship is proved.

Bingham did not define the term and the subject of his speech was not citizenship. He was commenting that that section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that dealt with citizenship was perfectly acceptable, but that section that attempted to extend the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the States was inadequate because it sought to alter the meaning of the Constitution.

That was Bingham's purpose: to extend the Bill of Rights to the States; he knew that nothing short of an amendment would do that. Thus the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was mooted by the 14th amendment. In the earlier debate Bingham indicated that the bill used the word 'allegiance' but the 14th amendment pointedly uses the word 'jurisdiction'. Clearly the author's of the citizenship clause of the 14th disagreed with Bingham on this point.

Deny Ignorance: think before you type.

edit on 26/4/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/4/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Here is a statement of Factcheck.org on Obama being Kenyan

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

It is still on the Fightthesmears website fightthesmears.com...

What does that mean? As a Kenyan native? Why don't they say he is a Native Born American? They say he never renounced his US citizenshp but that does not make him Natural Born.
edit on 26-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


WHERE ON EARTH IS HONOLULU, KENYA?????????????????????????????

If this isn't a case of blatant MISINFORMATION then I do not know what is!

This should've read as follows
"“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii while Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire"
edit on 26-4-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 




His mother would've had to file something called a "Renunciation Of Citizenship" with The US State Dept. for both her and Obama for which she never did and no record exists of it, once done it is very complicated to undo.


From the link you provided:



B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. sign an oath of renunciation

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.




F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.


Is it credible that a 10 year old child could "convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship."

I do not think so.

Deny Ignorance: Think before you type.

edit on 26/4/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Actually there is a certificate in the vault at the Hawaii State Department of Health that can be obtained by the President should he wish to file paperwork under the Freedom of Information Act and wait a few weeks.

CNN did a pretty good story on the whole thing last night. They sent a crew to Hawaii and talked to past and present people at the Department of Health.

The "Certificate of Live Birth" is the older form locked in away in their vault. That form is no longer used and cannot be used to obtain various liscenses from the state. Instead everyone is now issued a "Certification of Live Birth". This is what the President put online and its the only form used by Hawaii and the federal government. They showed what both forms look like and indeed the older invalid form is headed "certificate" and the newer valid form "certification".

Note for everyone: There isn't any block for religion on the older obsolete form.

The story was fairly informative and dispelled much of the information going around on both sides of the issue.

The best part was Anderson Cooper playing devil's advocate and saying in order to believe in a conpiracy behind the certification requires that the Department of Health be corrupt and compromised, so why would anyone even request the certificate if the department was part of the conspiracy? Logic would conclude that anything released could not be trusted, so why even ask for it?

It was part one of an investigation. Part two will be on this evening. I highly encourage people on both sides to watch part one, it dispels many myths.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




Please do some research before you jump in with statements you believe are obvious. Yes, it does matter that Obama Sr was not a US citizen. You have forgotten the part about where he has to be under the jurisdiction of the USA, in which case he was not.


Persons in the United States that are not subject to US jurisdiction are foreign diplomats, members of invading armies, and some Indians living on reservations.

To which one of these categories does Mr. Obama belong?

If Mr. Obama is not under the jurisdiction of the United States (and the State, territory, or district he is in) then would he not also be able to thumb his nose at parking tickets, bank robbery, and even murder? Perhaps that is how two poor students raised the money to go to Kenya for the birth, bank robbery?

Deny Ignorance: Think before you type.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




Please do some research before you jump in with statements you believe are obvious. Yes, it does matter that Obama Sr was not a US citizen. You have forgotten the part about where he has to be under the jurisdiction of the USA, in which case he was not.


Did you review the other links as well? The Snopes report is accurate. WND scrubbed the allegation because they acknowledged the fact.

The cases that Kagan worked were cases that named the Government of the United States. The standard practice is to use the name of the administration person having to do with the topic. Sometimes it is the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of the Interior, or the Attorney General. In the cases named by WND it was the President. Most of those cases were filed before Obama was President, and the President named was George W. Bush. When the administration changed, so did the short name on the cases. Joe Bloggs v George W. Bush became Joe Bloggs v Barack Obama.

None of the cases had anything to do with eligibility and none had anything to do with either Bush or Obama personally.

Deny Ignorance: Think before you type.
edit on 26/4/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So funny you said this even after I showed you the proof on the Supreme Court website.


You edited your post adding the link, so you did not show proof when I posted

Also none of those cases were about Obama's eligibility, nor were they acting for Obama.... so again you are wrong
edit on 26/4/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)


Yah I figured that after I saw your post was only two minutes after mine. But the statement given with the post was she never represented him on any case at all and that person quoted Snopes. It wasn't you though. My question to you or the other person or anyone is what were all those other cases about if they were not the BC? This I haven't looked into in depth, but it is clear that Snopes was lying and is not a valid source.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

Actually, all Native Americans became US citizens under the Nationality Act of 1940, previously only about half had US citizenship either through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, or via military service.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




Please do some research before you jump in with statements you believe are obvious. Yes, it does matter that Obama Sr was not a US citizen. You have forgotten the part about where he has to be under the jurisdiction of the USA, in which case he was not.


Persons in the United States that are not subject to US jurisdiction are foreign diplomats, members of invading armies, and some Indians living on reservations.

To which one of these categories does Mr. Obama belong?

If Mr. Obama is not under the jurisdiction of the United States (and the State, territory, or district he is in) then would he not also be able to thumb his nose at parking tickets, bank robbery, and even murder? Perhaps that is how two poor students raised the money to go to Kenya for the birth, bank robbery?

Deny Ignorance: Think before you type.


You raise a very good point on this. Perhaps it's a good case for him having dual citizenship. For purposes of the Natural Born issue and him being eligible for POTUS it is immaterial that he may on occasion get a speeding ticket. You can just be a resident and get one of those. A resident does not a POTUS make.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


This is what is emphasized upon and that is the parent must explain in depth what is good to their kid before they renounce their citizenship and must sign a piece of paper stating they understand all revocations.

"must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship. "

I did think before I typed.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Top story on CNN this morning was Trump and the birther movement. Further down the page they announced that due to budget cutbacks SETI was going to be shut down. Never mind that its a NWO that choreographs the illusion of democracy anyways. Now you can spend all your political energy arguing conclusively about whether the POTUS is a US born citizen.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
what were all those other cases about if they were not the BC? This I haven't looked into in depth


That is very obvious as if you had bothered to look at the links given you would have seen the details of those cases
www.snopes.com...


but it is clear that Snopes was lying and is not a valid source.


WRONG again, the snopes site was accurate, it is WND that was lying. again.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Why would he want to hide the fact he was born in Hawaii??




top topics



 
37
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join