White House Releases Obama's Long-Form Birth Certificate

page: 9
104
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
reply to post by xavi1000
 

This may or may not be real, but it has been photoshopped.
The writing etc is on a multiply layer to show that silly green background... which makes me wonder...
Why didn't they just show an undoctered version?


good grief.

Just give it up.




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 



Actually this person is kind of right

There was a law for people born between January 14, 1941, and December 23, 1952. When one parent was a citizen and the other a foreign national, the rules changed substantially. To pass on citizenship, the citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for at least 10 years before the birth of the child, and at least five of those years had to be after the parent turned 16. Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother who met the residence requirements were automatically citizens. For a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father, to obtain U.S. citizenship the child must have been legitimated before the age of 21.

All laws that came after were not retroactive. So this law applies to Obama. This law ONLY addresses citizenship and not natrual born citizenship. so it's not on the same lines that I'm arguing but it is another problem for Obama. Obama's mother only being 18 and his father being foreign could not pass citizenship onto her son. He would have had to be naturalized. Then there is the issue of his stint in Indonesia with his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Regardless...He's still not a natural born citizen....never will be because of his fathers status.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
when your born, there has to be conference of the birth, hence the reason for the signatures. this is a check and balance to ensure everything in the event of the birth is true.

otherwise, one could present any old baby that was brought in to the hospital, as being born in that hospital.(much like the COLB, but i digress)

there are multiple signatures, because no one party(parent, doctor, "other informant") meets the requirements of conference that the birth actually took place. they must all be there, and meet all requirements

the form presented, states that neither of the parents met these requirements. therefore citizenship cannot be proven, or even considered.


you can pretend that hawaii doesnt have the authority to decide the requirements for conference at birth, but that would be nothing short of hilarious. as the certificates, information on the certificates, and signatories of the certification, is produced by and withinin the state

i suppose you could just claim you were born within the boundaries of the united states, but unfortunately for you the only certification recognized by the federal and state governments is produced by the state. if that state happens to not confer people underage or foreign nationals, then it looks like theres no way to prove the person was born within the states.



to my knowledge the only federal document that proves unilateral citizenship within the united states, is a "certified degree of indian blood". and as the title states you must be indian to receive this, which means you or one of your family members must be listed on the dawes rolls.

you must remember that he was born before the nationality and immigration act of 1965.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Im rather suprised that Obama released it I know if I was in his shoes I would'nt have. But the way he's gone about it including have a press conference I think he just wtf pwned the birthers.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Understood as well. ....and I didn't direct the non-birther comment to you, I just added it to the post.

You have to admit if he had done this years ago there wouldn't be as many crying foul now. That has always been my biggest pet peeve of this issue, that I feel he deliberately manufactured this debate (or allowed it to grow - take your pick) to further his own agenda....and I think as POTUS it is wrong to willfully and deliberately ignite dispute among the American people. That's just the way I feel about it.

Just look at the meanness between the two sides on here; the insults between people who don't even know each other. Playing right into "someone's" hands. It's a shame.
edit on 27-4-2011 by glad_to_be_His because: edit to add



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndFUTURE
There was a law for people born between January 14, 1941, and December 23, 1952. When one parent was a citizen and the other a foreign national, the rules changed substantially.
... for births outside the United States!

You want to argue Constitutional meaning and Supreme Court cases when you can’t even understand those conditions applied to foreign and not domestic births?


All laws that came after were not retroactive. So this law applies to Obama.
What are you talking about? Was Obama born “between January 14, 1941, and December 23, 1952”? Apparently you don’t even know when the person whose birth we are talking about was born.


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



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndFUTURE
There was a law for people born between January 14, 1941, and December 23, 1952. When one parent was a citizen and the other a foreign national, the rules changed substantially.


ONLY IF THE BABY WAS BORN ABROAD (that means NOT born in the US) Obama was born in the US. Therefore your stuff does not apply!

PLEASE link your source!



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by glad_to_be_His
 


This is what I believe as well. If the person who won the Republican nomination was a birther, Obama could completely destroy him weeks before the election by releasing the birth certificate and getting another easy 4 years. If there's one thing we can thank the birthers for, it's the fact that we might be able to get Obama out of office in 2012 due to him releasing it so early.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 





2nd future, I truly wish that you and the other birthers would crawl back into your snail-shells and just give up. This is long long past the point of reasonable discussion. The fact that you have to resort to letters from John Jay should tell you something. You lost this argument a long time ago. You are just making our country look retarded.


So....I'm retarded because I care about our constitution being violated at every turn. I'm retarded because caring about the Natural born Citizen claus knowing what this precedent will mean for future candidates.

I say YOU are retarded for not knowing or understanding the importance of the Constitution and why it keeps you safe. You take for granted the rights you have though they are being whittled away by both parties in Washington.day by day.

I am not a "birther". I am a constitutionalist. And you should be too. Obama claimed to be but he is anything but



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document's safety paper be so seamless?

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?

• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.

• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndFUTURE
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 



Actually this person is kind of right

There was a law for people born between January 14, 1941, and December 23, 1952. When one parent was a citizen and the other a foreign national, the rules changed substantially. To pass on citizenship, the citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for at least 10 years before the birth of the child, and at least five of those years had to be after the parent turned 16. Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother who met the residence requirements were automatically citizens. For a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father, to obtain U.S. citizenship the child must have been legitimated before the age of 21.

All laws that came after were not retroactive. So this law applies to Obama. This law ONLY addresses citizenship and not natrual born citizenship. so it's not on the same lines that I'm arguing but it is another problem for Obama. Obama's mother only being 18 and his father being foreign could not pass citizenship onto her son. He would have had to be naturalized. Then there is the issue of his stint in Indonesia with his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Regardless...He's still not a natural born citizen....never will be because of his fathers status.


1. The law under discussion applies only to people who were born abroad, not in the united states.

2. You still are attempting to create a false definition of "natural born" citizenship.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. When he was born his father was a British Subject who maintained a legal DOMICILE in Kenya where he had OTHER CHILDREN and was only in the USA temporarily. At no time did he go through naturalization. At no time did he change his domicile. At no time did he apply for citizenship. The woman married him. So under both British and US laws at the time and the 14th amendment any baby so born would have been a BRITISH SUBJECT!!!! He is not a natural born citizen, no matter WHERE he was born. The 14th amendment has two stipulations, be born here AND… be under US jurisdiction. Obama Sr. was NOT under US jurisdiction and the courts have ruled that if you are here in the US temporarily or are foreign diplomats then your child is NOT A US CITIZEN!!! So showing a birth certificate COPY proves nothing. Being a graphic designer, I can whip up a COPY of anything instantly. Copies prove nothing. There is nothing to prove because the LAWS ARE ON THE BOOKS FOR ALL TO SEE, the US Constitution, Vattel’s Law of Nations, the 14th Amendment, the laws that govern BRITISH SUBJECTS and their children, and US Naturalization laws at the time.

This document is irrelevant to the controversy about whether Obama is a legal president or not.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Realize this does not change anything...
obama is still the worst president in the history of presidents.
The longer he is in office, the worse this country becomes.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Silly CanadianDream420, you're a Nazi racist extremist who has the IQ of a toad.

At least, that is the flood of responses you're about to get.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Not true. Ive read the exact law from 1941. Have you? It was talking about a child born here. Don't spread dis-information if you don't really know or won't actually look it up



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
What I wonder is why he didn’t show this a long time ago.

It’s been said that he spent allot of money on keeping it under lock and key.

Now what I see really looks like it’s been altered. It doesn’t look correct. It only adds to the conspiracy theory.

It’s almost looks like it was made to look fake to further discredit those who would bring its authenticity into question.

Please let us see some high quality scans of the original document so we can put this to rest and concentrate on other problems we face in this nation.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Oh brother. His parent's race are listed as Caucasion and African? What a bunch of crap. No one used those terms in that day. I was born 12 days after Obama, same year, and my birth certificate says father and mother listed as White - not Caucasion. FOUL - FAKE once again!

Edit to add: Africa is a continent, not a race!
edit on 27-4-2011 by wakeupcall1111 because: (no reason given)


Another Edit - that would be like my birth certificate saying I am American under the race section
edit on 27-4-2011 by wakeupcall1111 because: additions



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndFUTURE
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Not true. Ive read the exact law from 1941. Have you? It was talking about a child born here. Don't spread dis-information if you don't really know or won't actually look it up



Then give a link to that source.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Like others said....HE WAS BORN AS BARRY SOETORO period!!!!!! FRAUD OBVIOUSLY!!!!!



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ih8dogfarts
Like others said....HE WAS BORN AS BARRY SOETORO period!!!!!! FRAUD OBVIOUSLY!!!!!


No..he wasn't.

We really need a facepalm smiley.





new topics
top topics
 
104
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join