It's Official: Experts says Barrack Obama's Birth Certificate is a Forged Document

Originally posted by ontarff

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ontarff


Don't be foolish. The original hard copy typed birth certificate with signed witness(s) is empirical evidence as I have stated several times. Haven't you read this entire thread?

What are you trying to say? You want to hold it, touch it, smell it, taste it yourself?

No, now you are being foolish. I would accept the consensus of a committee/group of professionals who have analyzed it and provided a report on their findings.

So you want other people to touch it and feel it for you? Who then would you trust to do that? Seeing as how people have already done that and you do not believe them, who are you are going to trust to look at it for you and tell you honestly whether or not it is legit?

reply to post by ontarff


You quote from the dissenting opinion? Really????
Look, let's be reasonable about this. We're having this discussion because you make your presentation(s) in a civil, concise, and researched manner. I respond to you with respect (well, the best I can considering the lack of patience with the subject I have) precisely because of your approach and demeanor. I believe you to be intelligent and well-meaning and so I have respect for your posts. Although I CANNOT speak for Aptness, I suspect he takes the time to respond with the level of research to counter your points for the same reason.

However, I do not believe it would be unreasonable to ask that you treat us with the same level of consideration with regard to your sources. Suggesting that a "biased" site is nothing more than a "separating the wheat from the chaff" scenario when the specifics of their claims are directly disputable factually on a consistent basis doesn't really represent that kind of return consideration. Further, quoting from a dissenting opinion neither helps your argument nor the furtherance of this discussion.

reply to post by userid1

"As for Obama's roots in Hawaii, Abercrombie told Hawaii News Now he first laid eyes on baby Barack Obama a few days after he was born. Abercrombie said Obama's parents introduced their newborn to friends at the University of Hawaii where Abercrombie was going to college with the president's father." www.hawaiinewsnow.com...

OK, for your entertainment, (I don't recall if this was already posted) here is a video on topic.

(This NOT empirical evidence)

"...The people who loved his Mom and Dad"....yeah right, the parents who deserted him and left him with the grand parents.

When Isakoff asked Trump if he thinks officials in Hawaii are lying about the birth certificate, Trump answered, "The governor of Hawaii said he was there when he was born. Now do you really believe that the governor of Hawaii was there when he was born? I don't."

www.hawaiinewsnow.com...

I agree with Donald Trump....I don't believe anything Abercrombie is saying to protect himself (from questioning the legitimacy of the POTUS). He has changed his tune from when he was going to investigate the matter. One thing about some liars, they can't seem to remember how to keep their story straight and be consistent.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by filosophia
But, the first one is a forgery as well because it lists the race of the father as African and not negro,

I suggest you do some research about that, it has been mentioned here several times before! Even the Hawaiin Department of Health has explained that

Well I must have missed out on that conversation, I've yet to hear anyone explain the discrepancy on this issue.

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by ontarff

 

You quote from the dissenting opinion? Really????
Look, let's be reasonable about this. We're having this discussion because you make your presentation(s) in a civil, concise, and researched manner. I respond to you with respect (well, the best I can considering the lack of patience with the subject I have) precisely because of your approach and demeanor. I believe you to be intelligent and well-meaning and so I have respect for your posts. Although I CANNOT speak for Aptness, I suspect he takes the time to respond with the level of research to counter your points for the same reason.

However, I do not believe it would be unreasonable to ask that you treat us with the same level of consideration with regard to your sources. Suggesting that a "biased" site is nothing more than a "separating the wheat from the chaff" scenario when the specifics of their claims are directly disputable factually on a consistent basis doesn't really represent that kind of return consideration. Further, quoting from a dissenting opinion neither helps your argument nor the furtherance of this discussion.

edit on 9-7-2011 by userid1 because: grammar

OK, I'll quote here from "Opinion"

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

www.law.cornell.edu...

This only proves Wong was ruled a "citizen", not a "natural born citizen" and not anything to do with eligibility to be POTUS.

How many times do I need to emphasize this to you?

Originally posted by ontarff
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by ontarff

This only proves Wong was ruled a "citizen", not a "natural born citizen" and not anything to do with eligibility to be POTUS.

How many times do I need to emphasize this to you?

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: spelling

So, since (according to you) there is no "definition" of "natural born" by any competent authority, then there can be only two kinds of citizens - citizens, and "naturalized" citizens.

So which was Wong?

I have for a long time believe Obama was a fake why else would he seal all of his records as soon as sworn into office and he has spent millions in lawyer fees to keep the records sealed. I think Obama will fall the ATF gun selling deal is putting a lot of heat on him as the Justice Department.

reply to post by Kitilani

Seeing as how people have already done that and you do not believe them, who are you are going to trust to look at it for you and tell you honestly whether or not it is legit?

I don't believe the Director of the Hawaiian DoH Chiyome Fukino or Governor Abecrombie. Neither have backed up their statements with empirical evidence. Again, I will repeat, a group/committee of unbiased professional non-govermental professional experts in document fraud.

I am getting tired of having to repeat myself on this thread. This is turning into a never ending circle.

The other 113 page ATS thread that covers most of the questions asked is HERE. I would suggest that people do some reading to enlighten themselves. Geez!

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by Kitilani

I am getting tired of having to repeat myself on this thread. This is turning into a never ending circle.

The other 113 page ATS thread that covers most of the questions asked is HERE. I would suggest that people do some reading to enlighten themselves. Geez!

IIRC, that last time you used the term "enlighten", was on page 28 and the result was as follows:

Comment by Southern Guardian:

You have absolutely no issue with just ignoring the source right infront of you?

Southern Guardian's reference specifically denoting the ruling on the term "Natural Born Citizen": scholar.google.com...


Your comment:

My error. I did not have time to read the entire reference and did a Word text search of the whole document for "naturalized citizen" and it came up with no hits. I can not explain why this occurred.

The explanation was simple - you looked for the competely wrong term. "Naturalized" is irrelevant to the conversation

Try to be a little more careful in your "enlightenment" directives....

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by ontarff
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by ontarff

 

This only proves Wong was ruled a "citizen", not a "natural born citizen" and not anything to do with eligibility to be POTUS.

How many times do I need to emphasize this to you?

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: spelling

So, since (according to you) there is no "definition" of "natural born" by any competent authority, then there can be only two kinds of citizens - citizens, and "naturalized" citizens.

So which was Wong?

Did you watch the video I posted? There are citizens, naturalized citizens, and natural born citizens (Vattel et al.) I have already answered your question. There have been may posts answering this question as well. Please go back and read the earlier posts.

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by Kitilani

I don't believe the Director of the Hawaiian DoH Chiyome Fukino or Governor Abecrombie. Neither have backed up their statements with empirical evidence.

Since this is not possible according to state law - how would you expect them to do so. It would "appear" that you have no qualms about dismissing out of hand their statements simply because they aren't allowed to produce a document (Fukino) or are allowed to see it (Abercrombie), so "therefore" their statements are valueless as evidence - that's your argument is it? I'm amused at the Ambercrombie statement in particular - what were you looking for - a diary entry - something along the lines of "Oct 2nd 1961 - saw Young BO again today - looks happy and healthy and reinforces my unwavering belief that he will be a perfect 44rth president and commander--in-chief"?

I am getting tired of having to repeat myself on this thread. This is turning into a never ending circle.

Imagine how *we* feel......

Originally posted by ontarff

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by ontarff
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by ontarff

 

This only proves Wong was ruled a "citizen", not a "natural born citizen" and not anything to do with eligibility to be POTUS.

How many times do I need to emphasize this to you?

edit on 7/9/2011 by ontarff because: spelling

So, since (according to you) there is no "definition" of "natural born" by any competent authority, then there can be only two kinds of citizens - citizens, and "naturalized" citizens.

So which was Wong?

Did you watch the video I posted? There are citizens, naturalized citizens, and natural born citizens (Vattel et al.) I have already answered your question. There have been may posts answering this question as well. Please go back and read the earlier posts.

Why was it relevant? I know for a fact that Vattel has NEVER been quoted by the Constitution, US Code, or the Supreme Court on this issue.

Secondly, your video doesn't factually address the types of citizens according to published law - so what was it's purpose - to try and throw more mud?

Third - Tim Adams has been debunked by HI officials as never having had access to the BC, and to having "over-emphasized" his position during the campaign.

reply to post by userid1

Why was it relevant? I know for a fact that Vattel has NEVER been quoted by the Constitution, US Code, or the Supreme Court on this issue.

Look...we already know this. Duh! The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on this. (Did I hear an echo?)

Secondly, your video doesn't factually address the types of citizens according to published law - so what was it's purpose - to try and throw more mud?

Secondly, I believe the video does address the citizen types according to what our founders intended.

Third - Tim Adams has been debunked by HI officials as never having had access to the BC, and to having "over-emphasized" his position during the campaign.

Third, The video was for "entertainment" and also to support my argument about Abercrombie. I stated that it was NOT empirical evidence. I am not using Adam's statement in any of my arguments. Lighten up!

reply to post by userid1

Since this is not possible according to state law -...

blah, blah blah...
Again, I have to repeat....Q. What was the State law's intent? A. To protect privacy. Ding, Ding, Ding!

Obama compromised the State law when he voluntarily posted his questionable long form BC online. C'mon man!

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by userid1

Since this is not possible according to state law -...

blah, blah blah...
Again, I have to repeat....Q. What was the State law's intent? A. To protect privacy. Ding, Ding, Ding!

Obama compromised the State law when he voluntarily posted his questionable long form BC online. C'mon man!

No, he actually requested and received a "waiver" from the state to obtain and post it. That was Hawaii's decision for a "compromise" - not Obama's.

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by userid1
me:

Why was it relevant? I know for a fact that Vattel has NEVER been quoted by the Constitution, US Code, or the Supreme Court on this issue.

you:

Look...we already know this. Duh! The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on this. (Did I hear an echo?)

And yet (as has been pointed out to you), there are unchallenged lower court decisions which, in fact, DO define the term and do apply to Obama as part of a greater grouping of people - and they have NOTHING to do with Vattel's definition.

me:

Secondly, your video doesn't factually address the types of citizens according to published law - so what was it's purpose - to try and throw more mud?

you:

Secondly, I believe the video does address the citizen types according to what our founders intended.

Well that's very nice but...since your opinion, and what is recorded in case law don't agree, why would your *opinion* of the founding father's writings have merit?

me:

Third - Tim Adams has been debunked by HI officials as never having had access to the BC, and to having "over-emphasized" his position during the campaign.

you:

Third, The video was for "entertainment" and also to support my argument about Abercrombie.

Which it did a poor job of doing IMO - but hey, that's just me. Why is "entertainment" useful at this juncture of the discussion?

you:

I stated that it was NOT empirical evidence.

I certainly never said I thought it was empirical evidence either. I was simply pointing out the flaws it held in supporting ANY position you were advocating.

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by userid1

Since this is not possible according to state law -...

blah, blah blah...
Again, I have to repeat....Q. What was the State law's intent? A. To protect privacy. Ding, Ding, Ding!

Obama compromised the State law when he voluntarily posted his questionable long form BC online. C'mon man!

No, he actually requested and received a "waiver" from the state law to obtain and law to post it. That was Hawaii's decision for a "compromise" - not Obama's.

i can't seem to find that w/google....

i could use a link with good info for the book.

tia.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by userid1

Since this is not possible according to state law -...

blah, blah blah...
Again, I have to repeat....Q. What was the State law's intent? A. To protect privacy. Ding, Ding, Ding!

Obama compromised the State law when he voluntarily posted his questionable long form BC online. C'mon man!

No, he actually requested and received a "waiver" from the state law to obtain and law to post it. That was Hawaii's decision for a "compromise" - not Obama's.

i can't seem to find that w/google....

i could use a link with good info for the book.

tia.

edit on Jul-10-2011 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

"Obama submitted his waiver request last week, asking for two certified copies. His personal counsel, Judith Corley, also submitted a letter on Obama's behalf, saying the president was asking for a waiver so he could make the certificate publicly available and relieve the burden on the health department by the numerous requests it receives for records of his birth.

Hawaii's health director, Loretta Fuddy, responded with a letter of own dated April 25, approving the waiver request. Corley traveled to Hawaii to pick up the documents and carried them back to Washington on a plane. The documents arrived at the White House around 5 p.m. Tuesday."
www.naplesnews.com...

This was my Google search criteria: "Obama requests waiver for his BC." The response posted was the very first reponse listed by google.

Originally posted by xuenchen
i can't seem to find that w/google....
i could use a link with good info for the book.

It was explained in Hawaii’s news release.

Director Fuddy made an exception for President Obama by issuing copies of the original birth certificate. The departmental policy to issue only computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth remains in effect for all birth records that have been computerized. Director Fuddy, in her capacity as Health Director, has the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of birth records are made.

“The exception made in this case to provide President Obama with a copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth was done according to the letter of the law,” Attorney General David Louie said. “Director Fuddy exercised her legal authority in a completely appropriate manner in this unique circumstance. We will continue to maintain the strict confidentiality requirements afforded to vital statistics records, such as birth certificates. These requirements help protect the integrity of the records, and keep us all safe from crimes, such as identity theft.”

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by xuenchen
i can't seem to find that w/google....
i could use a link with good info for the book.

It was explained in Hawaii’s news release.

Director Fuddy made an exception for President Obama by issuing copies of the original birth certificate. The departmental policy to issue only computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth remains in effect for all birth records that have been computerized. Director Fuddy, in her capacity as Health Director, has the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of birth records are made.

“The exception made in this case to provide President Obama with a copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth was done according to the letter of the law,” Attorney General David Louie said. “Director Fuddy exercised her legal authority in a completely appropriate manner in this unique circumstance. We will continue to maintain the strict confidentiality requirements afforded to vital statistics records, such as birth certificates. These requirements help protect the integrity of the records, and keep us all safe from crimes, such as identity theft.”

So, does this infer that Hawaii DoH could also allow the original hard copy typed BC to be released as well using a waiver for release? I don't know.