Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

One More BC Thread, This Is Bizarre.

page: 2
95
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 

I believe Kenya is listed as the father's place of birth, not the child. The top of the document clearly states the child was born in Hawaii. I can't read the print in the last line but I'm pretty sure Kenya is not being used in relation to the birth.
He's an american and I believe he is an honest man who is trying to do what's right with absolutely NO support from anyone, pity.
If they prove he is not US born it could result in his removal from office, what should the consequences be for those who started this nonsense if they're wrong?




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
this sounds like THE OMEN....film with gregory peck



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


It does list Honolulu, BUT WITH THE CRITICAL FOOTNOTE NUMBER 1. The 1 references the footnote at bottom, which then states the birthplace as Kenya, per granny.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


What are the chances that an average Jo(e) would have this much confusion surrounding their birth certificate? Pretty slim. It's a bit TOO handy that a child of a CIA-involved father who is not a citizen has so many BC's with such conflicting info.

But if he's not president, anything he signed in that capacity is null and void.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
reply to post by Signals
 

I believe Kenya is listed as the father's place of birth, not the child. The top of the document clearly states the child was born in Hawaii. I can't read the print in the last line but I'm pretty sure Kenya is not being used in relation to the birth.
He's an american and I believe he is an honest man who is trying to do what's right with absolutely NO support from anyone, pity.
If they prove he is not US born it could result in his removal from office, what should the consequences be for those who started this nonsense if they're wrong?


That makes no sense... Why would they ask the grandmother where the father was born - and why would they mention the place of the father's birth in notes??? No, the note is regarding Barry's birth.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Bu how do you debunk the two scanned newspapers: The Honolulu advertiser, and the Star Bulletin.




A comparison of the Obama birth announcement in the two newspapers shows they are identical in every detail, including the order of other announcements preceding and following the Obama listing.“



OK, I just found some interesting info, comparison of the two newspaper announcements.
Click Here


Scroll down on his site, he posted scans from the newspapers in pdf..



OBSERVATION: The PDFs for the Library of Congress-Honolulu Advertiser shows no “periods” after the A M Hatchie announcement (two below obama’s). At 400% blown-up there are no “periods”. In the copy from the HI University Library they are crystal clear at the size the PDF opens in. In the HI State Library Honolulu Advertiser, the periods appears to be there as well, though harder to make out. Since that is the most “degraded” of the microfilms, if those are visible there, they should be on the Library of Congress copy also. AND: in the first ever posting of the obama announcement-the last name is spelled Hatchle, NOW in every copy I’ve seen it appears as Hatchie. So, again-clear differences between the copies at different locations. All aspects of the text should be the same in all papers/microfilms.

edit on 4/30/2011 by EternalThought because: (no reason given)





A poster on the blog stated: (made a mistake said Aug.6, instead of 4th) but has a good point...



The comment posted June 15th reflects the point I want to make, that is: It's quite common for the proud grandparents to announce the birth of their grandchild in their own local paper regardless of where the baby was actually born. As in our local paper, many times there will be such announcements and they usually, but not always, list the state and city of the parent's residence too, but I've seen several that neglect this information. These announcements prove nothing other than that Obama was born on Aug. 6th somewhere, not his birth place.

edit on 4/30/2011 by EternalThought because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


I really see no evidence that poor Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the people of this country. He ran around the world telling everyone that Americans were awful people and apologized for all of us to any two bit dictator that would listen. He has tried to undercut the Constitution every chance he got. I don't have any "pity" for people not supporting his actions.

I've seen more evidence that he MAY not be who he says he is than I've seen evidence to support he IS who he claims to be.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
HA! Just checked, and the released one also lied on Item 6d. In this it is marked NO, and in the "official" released one it is marked YES. 6d is "Is Place of Birth Inside City or Town Limits?

You're right OP, this IS bizarre!

The more I look at this close up, the more I believe this is real, and not fake. I don't believe this has been altered in any way that I can see. And note it is a jpg, exhibiting typical jpg compression artifacts. But the document and artifacts are consistent through and through. It is tough to fake the signatures going over the lines, and the scan artifacts in between the typed lettering.

DUDE! This might be it. Going to pull exif data on it...

Did anyone by chance ever find any proof that his mother was in Kenya at the time of birth? Remember what Granny said....
edit on Sat Apr 30th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)
edit on Sat Apr 30th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Oh noes, not again. :shk:

Just keep putting the quarters in, sooner or later your prize awaits you.....



Thanks for playing.........GAME OVER


PLEASE STOP THE INSANITY AND DENY IGNORANCE.
edit on 30-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
The more I look at this close up, the more I believe this is real, and not fake. I don't believe this has been altered in any way that I can see. And note it is a jpg, exhibiting typical jpg compression artifacts. But the document and artifacts are consistent through and through. It is tough to fake the signatures going over the lines, and the scan artifacts in between the typed lettering.


What a crock. THE EXACT SAME THING was said of THIS over two years ago.



Away....... the place Birthers should go.


edit on 30-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Ok so here appears to be a bigger version of the same thing, and someone said that it was posted on Orly Taitz's site some time back:



The pic in the OP appears to be a different image of the same source doc. Weird.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I believe the op pic is doctored. We have all seen the Certificate of Live Birth form previously, and the last line was not present on any previous image including the one currently up on wiki the forms are entirely different. Are you suggesting that he has two certificates of live birth?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
What's with all these BC's? It's like Highlander, there can only be one.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
hmm can anyone make out the sigs?
especially that last one its different from the 'official' fake
if we get a name we can track the person down may just bust this all wide open



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Ok so here appears to be a bigger version of the same thing, and someone said that it was posted on Orly Taitz's site some time back:


Did you just say Orly Taitz?





posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
I want to start by saying I really, really dislike the US Political Madness Forum. I do post here occasionally, but it usually gets me fired up, I try to stay away from politics...

However, I just ran across this site -

alohareporter.com...

Look at the date this was posted (on the link).

Now, take a look at their "copy" of the BC....look at the last line, just look at it!



If anything happens to me for posting this, it wasn't suicide.



Edit to add: the actual link in case it gets taken down - //alohareporter.com/2010/03/hawaii-considering-law-to-ignore-obama-birthers/
edit on 30-4-2011 by Signals because: classified


This makes sense, that would explain all the not wanting to show the certificate all this time and how easy to just remove the bottom line. Granny sends a birth note to the paper and he is born Hawaii. USA Granny wanted Grandson to be a USA citizen easy to understand, lose Hawaii law in those days probably permited it too.

edit on 30-4-2011 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


Well, this topic will be like all the other one's we seek answers to. Elusive.

This birth certificate could be real, the one put out by whitehouse could be real.

Or maybe the combination of the two is what is real. No matter how much we dig, we will never get the truth.

If you research beyond a doubt and find one you know is real, someone, somewhere will find a way to discredit you. We see it here everyday. Someone says Hoax, then others say Not Hoax, and the debate goes on in perpetual motion.

I like the evidence so I can make up my mind. And for me, I think we are being lied to at all levels on this birth certificate issue. I do not think anyone vetted his birth records to prove he was a Natural Born US Citizen. Seems this is the problem, not that he is a US citizen.

Article II Section I Clause 5 " No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible for the Office of the President..."

The real issue is that the Supreme Court has never ruled on what a Natural Born Citizen is, or I do not know of a ruling on this. That means that until this is challenged and ruled upon, as long as the person is a citizen of the US they will be allowed to be president.This can be concluded by what we have today, a real question as to if the President is a Natural Born Citizen in our definition.

Below is a excerpt from one Supreme Court Ruling. Like most rulings there is ambiguity in the answer. It does not come out and give a clear definition of what a Natural Born Citizen is.It bases it on English common law, and an argument can be made that if the child is born anywhere, by an American parent, in a land that has an allegiance to the USA, then that could make the child 'Natural" Born.

Plenty of room to argue as an advocate on either side.

The case was about a Chinese-American citizen being prevented from entering the country from a trip to China. The final ruling can be found in the link, but they affirmed he was born in the United States to foreign parents, but he himself was a United States Citizen by birth.

www.law.cornell.edu...


GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

169 U.S. 649
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.



19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by EternalThought
Bu how do you debunk the two scanned newspapers: The Honolulu advertiser, and the Star Bulletin.




A comparison of the Obama birth announcement in the two newspapers shows they are identical in every detail, including the order of other announcements preceding and following the Obama listing.“



OK, I just found some interesting info, comparison of the two newspaper announcements.
Click Here


Scroll down on his site, he posted scans from the newspapers in pdf..



OBSERVATION: The PDFs for the Library of Congress-Honolulu Advertiser shows no “periods” after the A M Hatchie announcement (two below obama’s). At 400% blown-up there are no “periods”. In the copy from the HI University Library they are crystal clear at the size the PDF opens in. In the HI State Library Honolulu Advertiser, the periods appears to be there as well, though harder to make out. Since that is the most “degraded” of the microfilms, if those are visible there, they should be on the Library of Congress copy also. AND: in the first ever posting of the obama announcement-the last name is spelled Hatchle, NOW in every copy I’ve seen it appears as Hatchie. So, again-clear differences between the copies at different locations. All aspects of the text should be the same in all papers/microfilms.

edit on 4/30/2011 by EternalThought because: (no reason given)





A poster on the blog stated: (made a mistake said Aug.6, instead of 4th) but has a good point...



The comment posted June 15th reflects the point I want to make, that is: It's quite common for the proud grandparents to announce the birth of their grandchild in their own local paper regardless of where the baby was actually born. As in our local paper, many times there will be such announcements and they usually, but not always, list the state and city of the parent's residence too, but I've seen several that neglect this information. These announcements prove nothing other than that Obama was born on Aug. 6th somewhere, not his birth place.

edit on 4/30/2011 by EternalThought because: (no reason given)


Anyone can send the local paper news of a family birth or death to be added to the paper...If Grandma wanted a record for her grandson she would have sent it in.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RandalFlagg
 


I agree, RandalFlagg. verry , verrry suspicious. So far 'The Birthers' have proved nothing while this madness continues. All that has effectively happened is that 'Birthers' have been segregated and rounded up so that they are easier to identify.

I am not sure if I have missed the bullet on that one myself. Everything taken in to account so far seems to illustrate that this is the end game. More and deeper division. Divide and conquer.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
so, do birth certificate arguments matter at all? if he WAS born in america, great, then all of the people who said they wanted him ejected because they thought he was born in kenya will just say "OH NO WE JUST THINK HE'S A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT." if he wasn't, well, okay, still great, because if you thought he was doing a great job as president(i'll hold my opinion), would that stifle your arguments or would you still think he should be ejected?






top topics



 
95
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join