AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Maybe for some, but not for many of the respected members here at ATS.

Oh, so you really just want to see verified evidence of his birth? Dont worry, heres some links again:
www.politifact.com...

Obama's short form:
www.politifact.com...

Verified by state officials:

To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.
"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008.

www.politifact.com...

Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama's birth certificate and found it to be valid.

www.starbulletin.com...

The bottom there clearly presents a seal and the signature of director for the health department of Hawaii, Alvin T. Onaka.

www.factcheck.org...
www.factcheck.org...

Im pritty sure any real objective individual would believe the above as opposed to what some title of some article says with no original link or verification or author for that matter. Dont worry, I can repeat this over and over again. If you find yourself forgetting again, I'll be happy to repost.

You keep saying that "birthers" have no legitimate reason to question this issue, and that Obama already released his BC. You are entitled to your opinion, but it won't sway mine one bit. Not until this is settled for good.

And hows it going to be settled? If you choose not to believe official statements from state officials, official verifications, if you choose not to believe the birth certificate he already released, if you choose to believe this conspiracy, 48years in the making, where a pregnant Mrs Obama, a student, managed to in the 60's afford a 40 hour plane ticked to Kenya, 8 months pregnant, only to stay there for a couple of days to give birth to Obama and then fly back, and yet some how the Hawaiian government has his vaulted kenyan long form, not Kenya itself, with this conspiracy involving the Hawaiian state government, the Hillary, McCain campaigns, the CIA, the FBI, the bush administration..? I could go on, seriously. You say this needs to be settled? Settle this with you and others? When you actually choose to buy this garbage??

How do you expect anybody to settle anything with you? Lets not forget your dislike for the man goes beyond this birther controversy. Whats there to settle TA??

Any self respecting

There is nothing respectable about what the birther movement has demonstrated over the last few months. Absolutely nothing.

SG

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by factbeforefiction

 

Im going to ask you again. Where is it that your long form birth certificate is required for a passport?

travel.state.gov...

Check the astrak on step two.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I never take blogs as truth. It's far to easy to post false information on a blog. I am sorry but that's not proof.

This is beyond absurd.

Birthers are amazing. You people just won't stop.
30 pages of posts.

This thing jumped the shark a long time ago.

Let's talk about something new like the kid and the balloon.

MODS...

Please take pity on us and end this thing already.

reply to post by jd140

A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes

May not be acceptable. In the state Hawaii short form birth certificates are acceptable

The state of Hawaii, which only issues short form birth certificates, accept it in the case of applications whether it be for passports or SS numbers.

I have used my certification of birth, my short form birth certificate and I have never had any issues. I am yet to meet one person who has actually used a long form birth certificate let alone attain one. I cant order a long form birth certificate because my original one doesnt exist anymore.

Your buddy who your refering for, stated quiet clearly that the only way to gain a US passport is by using a long form birth certificate, That is a lie, and your link doesnt prove otherwise.

"May, some, probably, maybe" doesnt do sorry.

SG

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I merely pointed out that some people do in fact need a long form to get a passport.

Doing so answered your question.

You didn't ask if Hawaiins need a long form, you just ask where it states that you need one and I showed you.

edit to add.

He is not my buddy, I don't buy into the birther movement so take your snide comments else where.



[edit on 17-10-2009 by jd140]

Originally posted by jd140
I merely pointed out that some people do in fact need a long form to get a passport.

Yes. You didnt point that fact out in all cases. In the state of Hawaii, short forms are accepted and are actually the only forms really left, unless your long form has been preserved.

You didn't ask if Hawaiins need a long form, you just ask where it states that you need one

Uh no, he made the generalisation that this is the case all the time, which is incorrect. Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, the matters of his citizenship are handled by the Hawaiian state government. The Hawaiian state government takes in short forms, to which he presented and had verified by state officials.

Our birth certificates are dealt by our states, and what are applicable to the laws of those states are applicable to matters of our identification and citizenships. There is no federal rule where short forms are ruled out or unaccepted.

SG



[edit on 17-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by ziggystrange


yep, 30 pages. kinda makes you think theres a lot of people who still question this. but if you like obama,it's just too much.
if you're really tired of folks asking for enforcement of the constitution,theres a whole bunch of other topics you can go to.
they're listed on the right hand side of the thread.
oh and mods can't end an idea or a belief. and they shouldn't simply for your viewing pleasure.
this is a discussion board,and opinion should not be moderated.

reply to post by whatukno

you said:
Oh I see, so you feel that Americans have no rights under the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. Is that what your saying. You don't like this amendment so it's just fine to ignore it because it's inconvenient for your little witch hunt?

please refer to article II,section 1 of the united states constitution

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 to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.


In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.


The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.


Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

there is no stipulation that elegibilty is overridden by the fourth amendment. if it did,no one would have to prove anything.
and this makes sense to you???

reply to post by Spectre0o0

yep, 30 pages. kinda makes you think theres a lot of people who still question this. but if you like obama,it's just too much.

Or there are other people who disagree with the whole idiocy and thus a debate ensues.

if you're really tired of folks asking for enforcement of the constitution, theres a whole bunch of other topics you can go to.

This is interesting, enforcement of the constitution by destruction of the same constitution. How does that work exactly?

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The official State of Hawaii comment from state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino:

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

He doesn't even confirm that the birth certificate says Obama was born in Hawaii, why not? That carefully worded statement raises more questions by what it DOESN'T say, than it answers.

Why (and for that matter, How) on earth would the state of Hawaii have his original birth certificate if they weren't the ones who issued it?

To answer that question, look no further than Barack Obama's half sister, Maya Soetoro. She has a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth just like Barack Obama does, but she was unquestionably born in Indonesia:

www.obamacrimes.com...

The only document purporting to be Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was actually a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth [COLB], an image of which was placed on Obama’s campaign website in June of 2008. It is important to note, Hawaii also issues Certification of Live Births to children born abroad upon the registration by a family member of the birth. A Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth is issued to children who are United States “natural born” citizens as well as “naturalized” citizens, who did not qualify for “natural born” status. Take for instance, Maya Soetoro, Mr. Obama’s half-sister who was born in Jakarta, Indonesia in 1970, she too has a Certification of Live Birth, however, she is not a United States “natural born” citizen.

So it's apparent Hawaii is not the birthplace of Maya Soetoro, but they must have something on file for her to issue her a certification of live birth according to Hawaii state policies and procedures, correct?

As for how they got the original birth certificate, I could speculate, but I'd rather Obama just live up to his campaign promise of transparency and authorize the release of the long form certificate so we don't have to guess. This guessing game is ridiculous when the question can be answered so easily and the courts may order it answered soon. Even the state of Hawaii wanted the Certificate of live birth to be submitted instead of the computer generated certification of live birth!:

www.therightsideoflife.com...

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL. (snip)

Hawaii Home Lands won’t take it, but Obama insists it certifies him to be Commander-in-Chief.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by whatukno

can't argue with that logic.
you got me. enforcing the big C is destroying it.you need sleep and therapy. good luck

oh and debate is not asking to have the thread shut down because you think you're right.
like i said. you don't listen there, keith olberman.
you have been given many facts here tonight. you have offered nothing logical or informative. you have spread disinfo,and refused to acknowledge fact.
therefore you have an agenda,or you are dedicated to this man,absolutely,and no amount of logic will prevail.
i hope you get what you're asking for,and i hope i'm a long way away when you get it. bye.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]

reply to post by whatukno


I didn't realize I had a constitutional right not to have to provide my identification and school records to all the employers and potential employers I've interacted with over the years. I should have hired attorneys to seal up those records and told all those employers they had no right to look at my private records.

I don't know why anyone wastes time debating any of this with you, you're not interested in debate or conspiracies for that matter. I'd say 99.9% of your activity on ATS is political defense of Obama and you work really hard at it.

You do realize you're telling people on ATS to ignore conspiracy, right?

It really amazes me when people preach about common sense and credibility and then flat out lie about things. You've been told probably 100 times why the short form isn't acceptable and you just keep pushing the fiction that it is. You've been given perfectly valid reasons why it isn't -1. even foreign born babies can obtain the exact same certificate and 2- anyone can walk into a hospital in Hawaii and claim a home birth. The only solution for this question is the long form certificate. Even as someone who doesn't agree with most of the people on that side of the issue I can see that simple fact.

Then you go into privacy rights?

He has the right not to take the job and we, as his employers have the right to know he's fully qualified according to the constitution.

Obama's political career certainly has profited by infringing on the privacy of others, why is he entitled to special treatment?

reply to post by Spectre0o0

please refer to article II,section 1 of the united states constitution

I am keenly aware of this. What I am referring to is the fact that birthers demand from this president an unwarranted search and seizure of his personal papers without due process under the law. When a birther says "Just show it" they are in fact throwing the constitution out the window. You are denying a person his protections under the constitution? Is this the search for truth you want? To deny anyone the rights they have under our constitution is to deny us all those protections.

It's difficult for me to support any argument that by it's very nature would weaken our constitution. Asking questions is great, we should always question authority. But when it goes beyond the search for truth to compulsion and obsession it's no longer the search for truth, it's a witch hunt and it's insanity.

Obama has provided a certified and verified legal form of identification showing his birthplace is in Hawaii. Now that evidence, (That can actually be used in a court of law.) somehow, some way isn't good enough as proof. But somehow an obscure unverifiable headline in an African online newspaper counts as the smoking gun?

Also, for someone who is apparently destroying the country with every waking breath, why is it that you also feel that...

this post

here's the best answer
obama in a nutshell

Sums up Obama in a nutshell? A SNL Sketch showing how Obama hasn't done anything during his presidency so far.

there is no stipulation that elegibilty is overridden by the fourth amendment. if it did,no one would have to prove anything.

Apparently you don't understand the argument I am saying. If your argument is so weak, that you have to remove our protections under the constitution in order to try and fry one person that you have a political hatred for. You don't have a valid argument.

and this makes sense to you???

Makes perfect sense to me.

reply to post by whatukno


so let me get this straight. you put your shoes on then you don your socks?????

you scare me!

you can't argue with a noproofer,because only dedicated opinion applies.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]

reply to post by ecoparity


So when you go get a job somewhere, you have to show your proof to everyone at the job, or the people that are legally qualified to view it?

Really? Is that what your saying?

As you only vote for electors, not the president, I don't see how you could possibly be his boss. Frankly your not qualified to determine what is legitimate legal proof. Congress the people that confirmed him however do. But I guess reading the constitution doesn't matter if it refutes what you want to happen.

I haven't lied once on this issue, birthers on the other hand have absolutely no problem lying and putting forth false information in order to bolster this fictitious and ridiculous pseudo conspiracy crap-a-thon.

As I am not trying to determine whether or not he is eligible for the job, (because I believe he already provided adequate enough proof of eligibility) please save yourself the embarrassment of trying to turn around the argument saying that I also have no legal qualifications to determine it either.

It's sad really, reality escapes some doesn't it?

reply to post by Spectre0o0

so let me get this straight. you put your shoes on then you don your socks?????

If that is what you want to believe

you scare me!

I appreciate that





Some video viewing fun for you all


[edit on 10/17/2009 by whatukno]

i just searched the web. i cant find an article saying threres a vetting process for president. vice prez ,yes,but potus no.
now i may have missed it ,i only looked in about 4 places.but i cant seem to confirm he was vetted.
what i did read was that the fbi doesn't vet presidents,because the people have given their approval and it need not be done!
please correct me,someone,with a link to the vetting of obama.
please
and i don't mean by the media.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]

i'll wait...take your time.


(humming the theme to jeopardy)

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]

reply to post by Spectre0o0


Each party vets it's candidate, Nancy Peloci vetted Obama and sent a letter to each state saying he was the person on the ballot.

Before you go there, we already discussed the issue with the wording on the democratic ballot letters.

Anywho, after the electors vote, congress confirms the president then the supreme court swears him in. (I am sure there are still those that believe that this didn't happen)