White House Releases Obama's Long-Form Birth Certificate

page: 4
104
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Timing is wrong.

I wonder what Trumps watchdogs found that the white house is trying to deflect.




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndFUTURE
But he's still not a natural born citizen because his father was never a citizen of the USA. He was barely here.


If you move that goalpost any further, it will be in the next county!

Truth is, this may satisfy 2% of birthers. But the fact is, they still hate Obama, he still has a funny name and he's still black. THAT is why most birthers won't change their tune.


Originally posted by aptness
It must suck to have to come to grips with your delusion.


Can I put this in my signature?



Originally posted by tungus
The release date of Apr 25 seems like a rush job and hardly worth spending 2 million bucks to keep it secret up until now, even if it is taxpayers money. Something is not right.


What's 'not right' is that you continue to believe the $2 million birther lie.


Originally posted by drmeola
The Constitution lists three requirements for any individual wishing to become president of the United States. A president must:
1. be a native-born U.S. citizens.


The Constitution says "Natural-born", not "native-born", just FYI.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by drmeola
Page 199 of the law dictionary clearly states that the child takes on the subject or citizenship of the father. Some parts of this have been amended such as the (negroes, or descendants of the African race, in general, have no power to vote, and are not eligible to office)
How ever the qualifications for holding office is clear, and Obama does NOT qualify simple because his father was not a US citizen.


To clarify though the argument is this:

1) If he was born abroad then he needed both parents to be US citizens which he has now admitted is not the case.

2) If he was born in the US then he is a US citizen.


If it turns out this is a forgery and he was born overseas then the requirements are as follows:

Between 1/13/41 and 12/24/1952

If both parents are U.S. citizens, at least one resided in the U.S. before the child’s birth.

If both parents are U.S. citizens, no retention requirement.

If one parent is a U.S. citizen, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after age 16.

2 years continuous presence in the United States between the ages of 14 and 28. However, there is no retention requirement if born on or after 10/10/1952.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ..5..
Timing is wrong.

I wonder what Trumps watchdogs found that the white house is trying to deflect.


Actually the timing was absolutely perfect... It was their strategy all along, as I predicted in numerous posts in several threads here.

Your move Donald.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by yourmamaknows
How come the document from a day later is numbered 10637, and Obama's is numbered 10641?
Is this significant?
No.


Or maybe it doesn't matter?
It doesn’t.


Some help here would be appreciated.
Check out the CNN piece. They went to the Department of Health with Stig Weidelich, a man born a few hours after Obama and his birth announcement shows up on the same page on the newspaper as Obama’s. His certificate number is 010920.

Obama, born on August 4, filed on August 8, certificate number 151-1961-10641.
Nordyke sisters, born on August 5, filed on August 11, certificate number 151-1961-10637.
Stig Weidelich, born on August 5, filed on August 8, certificate number 151-1961-010920.

The Department of Health doesn’t number the certificates right away probably. They only number, index and archive them every week or something, and they probably do it by name.

If you look at information above, Weidelich’s certificate was filed on August 8 and has a higher number than the Nordyke sisters’ even though theirs was filed on August 11.

W comes after O and N.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
And elite again with very smart playing ....Trump is looking now like a fool ....next is Romney ....this is it : Obama will be elected in 2012 ..TPTB decision



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I don't typically condone Alex Jones in anyway or form. Though he does a good job at doing what he does, I don't trust him. Anyway, his latest interview with famous journalist Wayne Madsen goes into detail WHY the Birth Certificate was hidden for so long because it will lead to the trail of Obama's past. The fact that his history is being re-written in real time by the press. Just watch this first clip to see what I am talking about. It's his past that he's REALLY trying to conceal and for good damn reason. I mean really, why did he spend 5million dollars and then some these past 3 years in legal fee's over this very topic?

edit on 27-4-2011 by Bonified Ween because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-4-2011 by Bonified Ween because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by drmeola
Ok now the legal definition of native-born citizen:
Page 199. Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States.
Clearly states children of period, since both parents where NOT US citizens means he is NOT native, but a natural and NOT eligible to hold office.
Actually, the Constitutional requirement says natural born, not native born.

Regardless, the definition of native that you cited contradicts your conclusion. This is the definition you cited—

Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States.
Where was Obama’s father residing? Was he here illegally?

You have no idea what you’re talking about.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


All the constitution says is natural born or citizen of the united states at the time of adoption of the constitution. If he was born in Hawaii to at least one parent of U.S. citizenship he may qualify to be president. However, if he renounced his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia then that may disqualify him.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Truth is, this may satisfy 2% of birthers. But the fact is, they still hate Obama, he still has a funny name and he's still black. THAT is why most birthers won't change their tune.


Racists use race in their arguments. That'd be you. The exciting part is now that he's published this there had better not be any forgery in it at all or he'll be impeached. That might be part of the plan though - his handlers are wanting to fire him for his inability to get the 4th war going.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
All the constitution says is natural born or citizen of the united states at the time of adoption of the constitution. If he was born in Hawaii to at least one parent of U.S. citizenship he may qualify to be president. However, if he renounced his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia then that may disqualify him.
He didn’t. Unless you have the US Department of State documents showing that he did.

US law doesn’t permit parents to relinquish the citizenship of their minor children. Even if Indonesia granted Indonesian citizenship to Obama, this is of no consequence for US law or citizenship purposes.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Well I guess the the black image is a negative but to jump on the spot the difference bandwagon what would the reason be for birth certificate 61 10637 register a birth on the 5th but 61 10641 register a birth the previous day?

Probably nothing but I do enjoy a good mystery.

Never mind, this has already been brought up.



edit on 27/4/11 by JohnGeeTee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


All the constitution says is natural born or citizen of the united states at the time of adoption of the constitution. If he was born in Hawaii to at least one parent of U.S. citizenship he may qualify to be president. However, if he renounced his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia then that may disqualify him.



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.


travel.state.gov...

Keep lining them up....I'll keep knocking them down.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I read that Obama is supposed to address this issue this morning in a statement. Has he made it yet?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I read that Obama is supposed to address this issue this morning in a statement. Has he made it yet?


I think this is it. I haven't watched it yet....

punditpress.blogspot.com...



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Maybe he's not that mean. Trump looks stupid now. This could ruin Trump! But that's all Trump's doing.


Actually, you might have nailed it there.

I said earlier that Trump could look like a hero either way. If Trump had announced that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and Trump had taken credit for putting the birther issue to rest, the birthers would have loved Trump, the Dems would have loved Trump for his honesty. The middle would have loved Trump for putting the issue to rest.

Maybe Obama was just scooping Trump, and releasing it to steal the wind out of Trump's sails?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
So here's something to think about guys. So they are making it seem like Trump instigated this all thing, but that could just be a cover. The real reason they could have released it is Jerome Corsi's book about Obama's past is set to be released next month. Perhaps the strategy was to release the BC now, so that if the book mentions suspicions about Obama not releasing it, it will look like "old news"



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I read that Obama is supposed to address this issue this morning in a statement. Has he made it yet?


He has, live on television a while ago... He joked that he cant get the networks to break in for other more important stuff, but they were all breaking in for this.



The rest of his comments were entirely predictable, and without hearing them, you can already imagine what was said.

He did seem a bit angry toward the end.




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
And elite again with very smart playing ....Trump is looking now like a fool ....next is Romney ....this is it : Obama will be elected in 2012 ..TPTB decision


Obama will be re-elected in 2012 because the electoral map heavily favors him, incumbent Presidents are not often defeated, every single Republican candidate has significant flaws, the President has a massive "get out the vote" infrastructure, and Republicans have done a very good job at alienating youths, blacks, gays, asians, latinos, college-educated professionals, and women.

I think the real conspiracy here is the paranoia and complete inability to accept reality in the face of unrelenting facts. Every single "theory" on this subject has been disproven over and over again, for over two years.

I see posters on this thread who subscribe to the birther theory still putting out widely and completely disproven myths about this subject. It's maddening!



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Ok, first off let me say, what people are missing some of my points, I am a 2 year constitutional law study student, like I said things where and are changed in legal definition every few years, the definitions and requirements I stated where from the original law text from 1843 and 1856.

This is the reason for word changes such as native and natural, the constitution is a legal contract so you have to understand the legal language of the time written, this is where most people get confused, most have no idea and very little understanding of this document.

Today we have attorneys that practice case law, not real law, and are certified as attorneys at law, the difference between (at law) and (in law) is a big one. One single word in a contract changes the entire document, so I don’t expect many people would understand things such as country/state.

Or have any clue of the true evils of the 14th amendment, so this will be my last post to this thread but anyone interested in law and the truth about the so called freedom movement can look up my threads.

God Bless you all and your families

Amen






top topics



 
104
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join