It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arizona House OKs Birther Bill! here we go....

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Typical. When the facts come out the birthers come out of the woodwork to dismiss the facts.


Originally posted by allprowolfy
southern/ kinda feeling that your a bit lost as maybe your discussion came in on the ladder a bit slow, but your arguement with this thread had about as much legitimacy as a fisher man catching trout and then only catching a carp? your point is?


My point would be quite clear if you cared about the facts of the issue. The bill passed does not have any weight as the eligibility of the president constitutionally is left up to congress and the electors, not the states. If you want to change that you must pass an amendement giving states the authority of eligibility over the president. That is not the case at the moment, and even if it was the case you would need all 50 states to verify the presidents eligibility which is to be frank complete nonsense.

As of now whatever 'conclusions' state politicians come to the short form birth certificate has no bearing on the constitution and the eligibility of the president. Its astound that birthers insist on upholding the constitution but they refuse to understand it!




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I don't hate the man. Just his policies and tactics. As for the pic. It was what I had on file. I was in a hurry. I don't thik you would have like the other choices. Kinda like the MSM Palin photo album.

Anyway, some wonderful arguements going on with this thread. Be sure to S&F to draw attention so everyone may enjoy your collective wisdom.

Night.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I don't hate the man.


Hate, dislike, whatever you try to frame it, the suggestive picture was unnecessary and evident of how you feel about him.


It was what I had on file.


That picture was not even in the source you posted, The picture is suggestive and used by many anti-Obama posters to smear. It was unnecessary.


Anyway, some wonderful arguements going on with this thread. Be sure to S&F to draw attention so everyone may enjoy your collective wisdom.


Exactly what do you expect this bill to do considering it is completely useless? For attention? What do you expect the pandering politicians behind this bill to do? Do you think they really care about the conspiracy itself? Or their political careers?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
problem with this is

it allows him to stay in office
the rest of his current term

this is only for future use
and does not help the current
status quo


My thought exactly. I live in AZ, and can say that the harm he is causing is immense. The "mandate" for healthcare is crazy, bad care, costs too much, and makes you buy it or lose tax return/face fines. This is being tossed around. To those calling AZ "Kooky" and all, I don't like Mccain, he does NOTHING FOR ARIZONA. It is like these morons are elected and say, "Lets have me in Boston" and "Lets put me in New York." Gabrielle Giffords is involved in AZ, but Mccain is too much of a Neocon/Globalist puppet to care about AZ.

2nd Amendment being threatened? The THINKING behind a person needing to be a citizen is they would be (in theory) LESS LIKELY to destroy the country voluntarily. If you hear Obama, and I supported him HEAVILY during the election as did others who were tricked, he speaks of no country being above others, and pitches his GLOBALIST agenda. He says what you want to hear, reads the teleprompter, then does what his puppet masters tell him to do. It is sick, wake up.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by allprowolfy
hey d, when did obama show his official birth certificate? get off the punch buddy!


Obama's Birth Certificate

Nice. You accuse me of alcoholism, yet you are either too lazy or ignorant to perform a simple Google search.

This is why there is a birth certificate conspiracy in the first place. Willful ignorance combined with plain stupidity.


Indeed...

I have one too.. www.panamalaw.org...

This one is even signed by a doctor! It also has a raised seal...



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Another fake Kenyan birth certificate again. The hypocrisy is astounding you know...? not just over the fact that birthers are prepared to readily accept Kenyan birth certificates without verification (while refusing to accept the verified Hawaiian one) but also when they are found to be fake, they have the nerve to move on and accuse others of lying, misleading.


Originally posted by daddymax

Indeed...

I have one too.. www.panamalaw.org...

This one is even signed by a doctor! It also has a raised seal...


Ok first of all the short form birth certificate has a raised seal and was verified by Hawaiian officials. Second of all regarding the Kenyan birth certificate you so readily accepted, there are a number of points that indicate it to fake.

1.Coast Province General Hospital did not exist in 1961.

2.Until 1964, Kenya was the Dominion of Kenya, not the Republic of Kenya, and Mombasa was part of Zanzibar until December 12, 1963, not a coastal province of Kenya.

3.Dr. James O.W. Ang’awa, the physician who was named in the document as the attending physician at President Obama’s birth, was a physician who worked in Kenya during the 1960s; however he worked at Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi. Dr. James O.W. Ang’awa never worked at any hospital in Mombasa.

4.The dates on the document are formatted in U.S. style, listing in order the month, date and year; this is not the British format which typically follows the order of date, month and year.

5.The footprint on the document appears nearly perfect in definition; real infant footprints typically show signs of smudging because of foot movement.

6.The footprint on the document is densely black, revealing few natural lines on the sole of the foot; footprints used for document identification are typically inked much lighter to allow for natural lines to be clearly apparent.

7.Footprints taken for document identification are typically taken for both feet, just as fingerprints taken for identification are typically taken for both hands.

8.The document does not look remotely like the 1961-era birth certificates used in Kenya; infant footprints were not displayed on Kenyan birth certificates in the 1961-era.

9. Kenyan officials have not authenticated the document. Hawaiian officials have for the presidents short form birth certificate.

The funniest thing was Lucas smith walking to a bunch of Bahaman kids acting as if he was in kenya. Did you see the video? Do you actually buy that act? Really??

People also forget that Mombasa, the muslim part of Kenya (as purposefully added to these fake birth certificates) is nearly 500 miles from lake Victoria where Obamas estranged grandparents live. It absolutely makes no sense to put the fake birth certificate in Mombasa other than to imply some further islamic connection.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by daddymax
 


Now I hope you don't run off like the others only to spread disminformation somewhere else. Im waiting for you to address my post.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
oops

oops

[edit on 20-4-2010 by DEEZNUTZ]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


ty, sir, i am not an idiot, just wanting a bit of proof. about dam time! ty sir
2nd line


I beg to differ about the idiot part. You want someone to do all the work for you. I think if all the evidence you ever wanted came up and slapped you upside the head and you wouldn't believe it.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Well, this went a little off track-down BC lane.

I think what is important is the future and not the past-so much. AZ came up with this law to satisfy it citizens desire to make sure the people running for office have the proper clearance.

Okay, it was POTUS Obama that happened to be the one that this issue exploded on. So-be-it.

Fact of the matter is-regardles of skin color or race is that the PEOPLE of AZ want the proof and I beleive they are in the right to. If you want to sit here and make it all about Obama, go ahead.

The other fact is that HE and EVERYONE else will have to follow the same extablished criteria. Period. I hope/wish every state would have this requirement.

And to all of you who keep saying Obama was born here in the US-why is it that it is his own family members saying O was born in Kenya-no me/us. I wonder why there is so much confusion. And that is just the start. Maybe you need to convince them first then worry about the US people.

[edit on 4/20/2010 by anon72]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
And to all of you who keep saying Obama was born here in the US-why is it that it is his own family members saying O was born in Kenya-no me/us. I wonder why there is so much confusion. And that is just the start. Maybe you need to convince them first then worry about the US people.


...and yet another almost decent post goes right off the rails. Which relatives are making that claim again? I have a feeling I can convince them and you.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
The "Birthers" are like a dog with a bone. They just won't let go. Does anybody honestly believe that he wasn't fully vetted once he announced his bid for President?

And why does it matter? Most people here think that the President is just the TPTB lapdog so really does it matter what country he was born in?



It would be funny if it wasn't soo sad.


It all comes down to the conspiracy in everything angle. Why do you think they courtmartialed that idiot. Its been proven and doesn't matter either way.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
UIPA REQUEST CONFIRMS QUIP, EXPLAINS MULTIPLE ORIGINAL VITAL RECORDS OF BARACK OBAMA


(Jan. 12, 2010) — An intrepid citizen-researcher has confirmed that the man who goes by the name “Barack Hussein Obama II,” has an original vital record kept by the Hawaii Department of Health, which bears the name “Steve Dunham.”

The citizen researcher began her quest, following two lines of research: 1) the fact that the name “Steve Dunham” appears in records associated with Obama’s alleged mother, Stanley Ann Dunham; and 2) the fact that Obama himself is said to have quipped that his middle name was “Steve” (as some of his followers know cf. YYouhan’s comment).



Barry Steve Dunham


Based on this admission, the citizen-researcher requested from Janice Okubo, Communications Director for the Hawaiian Department of Health, the index data for all the Steve Dunham’s in their registry, born born on Aug. 4, 1961. The request was made on Oct. 29, 2009, and read as follows:

Aloha Ms. Okubo,

IAW Hawa’ii Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18( d), I am requesting all index data pertaining to the vital records of Steve Dunham, Steven Dunham, Stephen Dunham born on 8/4/61. Please send me death, birth, divorce and marriage index and any other information you have on the index for this name.

This statute at para (d) provides officials no authority to withhold the requested information. Therefore, I as an American citizen, am invoking Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d) Disclosure of records, which reads as follows: (d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public. Please follow any other statutes of Hawaii that cover this information to be released.

Thanks,

The answer came from Okubo on Nov. 10, 2009 and was contained in an Acknowledgment to Requester form, which read thus:

This acknowledgment is provided in accordance with section 2-71-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”), because the following extenuating circumstance(s) exist::

X — Agency requires additional time to respond to the request in order to avoid an unreasonable interference with its other statutory duties and functions.

Like most requests for such information, since the end of September when the Department began releasing such — following the threat of a lawsuit from another citizen-researcher — Okubo responds rather quickly with a denial that the information requested is available (if it regards Obama) or an admission that it is, and a release thereof.

In this case, Okubo responded that she needed more time to respond! This response of Okubo contains an obvious evasion. Because it takes less than 5 minutes to type “Steve Dunham” into their database and pull up the index data for such record.

The response that she needed more time indicates what kind of response she had decided to craft.

Guess how long it took her to respond to a 5 minute work assignment?

You guessed it; she responded yesterday, January 11th; but only after being prodded by another email from the same citizen-researcher. Or in other words, she did not want to respond at all, and was hoping the request would be forgotten.

Curious, and perhaps significant, is that between the time the request was made, and the initial “We don’t have the time right now” response was issued by Okubo, Paul Tsukiyama, the Director of the Hawaii Office of Information Practices, who was advising Okubo on how to respond, resigned (Nov. 6, 2009). Could this be because he knew that this one request would burst the dam, and thus, he did not want to be involved in a cover-up?
The Response

Obviously if Obama was born with the name “Steve Dunham,” he could not lawfully bear that name unless his original vital records were amended OR he submitted a change of name through the Hawaiian Courts.

As The Post & Email reported on Sunday, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii, has denied any name change requests, made through the courts, exist.

Therefore, if there was a name change it had to be by an amendment of the original vital record.

Therefore, if such a name change was found, the vital record for Obama would technically no longer exist under the name Steve Dunham.

So Okubo, under this scenario, would have a legally perplexing problem to solve; if she denied the request for Index data, she could be accused of lying or violating the law; if she admitted a record for a “Steve Dunahm” existed for that date, Obama would be exposed, and might retaliate against the Department through withholding funding; a possible threat, which is seemingly indicated by Attorney Joesting, in her letter to Okubo regarding the non-answer to my own UIPA request made at the end of September.

So what did she say in her response, yesterday?

In her official response received by email last night, Okubo denied that there is any index data for a vital record of a birth for a “Steve Dunham”, a “Steven Dunham”, or a “Stephen Dunham.”

It took her 60 days to figure how to respond to a job which required 5 minutes of work. And that in itself, lets you the reader know, what she meant to say: his name is “Steve Dunham”! But “Steve Dunham” does not appear on the current version of Obama’s vital record, so she can deny it, without technically violating the law. If the record never existed, or never contained that name, there would be no reason for the dely in denying it. It’s just that simple.

But for those would won’t accept Obama’s own admission; and who believe Okubo needs to seek 2 months of legal counsel to deny a request for a document that does not and never did exist; no amount of reasoning is necesssary. However, for those with common sense, I offer this analysis:
The Analysis

As for those who do not believe that this interpretation is correct, they must hold Obama was lying, in the above video, when he said his name was “Steve.” To doubters, therefore, I ask, “So was he lying when he said his name was “Barack Obama,” or when he said his name was ‘Steve’ “?


It looks increasingly like no one was born with the name Barack Hussein Obama II.


Some folks need to look beyond the color of their skin and LEARN what truth is...



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Damn it!

I was hoping Obama had set a precedent so Arnie could get in...



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Obama could issue an Executive order pardoning every single illegal in the US and get 20 million more Hispanic votes.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   




What I am reading is that some lady just assumed that he was born with the name Steve. He denied this and there was no evidence found of it being true. The conclusion is that it is true?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by DEEZNUTZ
 


hey deez, did you read the last two posters my man! guess your hypothetical sack got in the way of your thinking? calling someone an idiot is really easy when one has an iq of around 30! read the last two posters reply with steve dunham, do we truthfully know who this man is? i mean hell! think about it a bit before you go making your self out for a super cool fool



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   


the plain words of the U.S. Cosnstitution, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme CourtJohn Jay, the Law of Nations, and numerous legal decisions in the Federal and foreign courts.

Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama was too young to confer her U.S. citizenship upon her child while she was no more than 18 years of age. In the eyes of international treaties and law and U.S. statutory laws, she was a child bride whose children were born with jus sanguinni citizenship of their legal father (not necessarily the biological father) and not their child mother, no matter where in the world the birth actually occurred.

The only way in which her son could qualify as a “native born” U.S. citizen at birth is by being born within the jurisdiction of the United States under jus soli doctrine of being born on the soil of the United States.

Nonetheless, a person is not a “natural born citizen” as defined by the U.S. Constitution until and unless both parents of the person were themselves U.S. citizens of any kind (natural born, native born, or naturalized) at the time of the child’s birth.

Barack Hussein Obama II must be either (1) a “native born” U.S. citizen under the jus soli birth in a U.S. jurisdiction and a “native born” British citize by the doctrine of jus sanguinnis and British laws regarding citizenship, or (2) he is an illegal alien born only with his father’s British citizenship under the doctrines of jus sanguinnis and jus soli. In either case, the child was born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign regardless of whether or not the child was also born with a “native born” U.S. citizenship.

The Founding Fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution with the deliberate intent to deny eligibility to the Office of the President to any person who was born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign such as the British monarchy after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Barack Hussein Obama was born with just such a disqualifying allegiance to a British sovereign, despite the fact his mother was a U.S. citizen.

Despite many efforts in the U.S. Congress to change the Constitution in an effort to eliminate the natural born citizen clause or redefine it out of existence during the past decade and longer, the natural born citizen clause remained unchanged and in full force to the present day.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkspARCS
 


Cheers to you and your post. Just another reason to raise the question that I have had since day one. Who is Obama's real father? The BC issue has nothing to do with citizenship. He is concealing the ID of his father and is covering up the lies that were construed by his mother's family to legitimize and illegitimate pregnancy back when our nation was still rather conservative regarding the topic of unwed mothers. Especially unwed mothers involved in interracial relationships.

Barack Sr. was just a convenient paid pawn used to legitimize a birth.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I swear, Arizona has gotten so kooky recently. I say let's give it back to Mexico and deport all the California/Texas illegals there...starting with John McCain (I'm convinced he is an illegal, unless he can show me his long form BC)

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Aggie Man]


Dude, you're little late on the news!
There was such concern and consternation among Democrats regarding John McCain's place of birth (A military base in Central America) that not only did they demand the long-form, they held Congressional hearings on McCains eligibility.


If only there wasn't so much hypocrisy amongst Democrats!



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join