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.
Originally posted by kozmo
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!
"It's shocking. That was a tough primary you had there, John. Anyway, anyway, that's who I really am. But in the spirit of full disclosure, there are a few October surprises you'll be finding out about in the coming weeks. First of all, my middle name is not what you think. It's actually Steve. That's right. Barack Steve Obama."
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.
"It's shocking. That was a tough primary you had there, John. Anyway, anyway, that's who I really am. But in the spirit of full disclosure, there are a few October surprises you'll be finding out about in the coming weeks. First of all, my middle name is not what you think. It's actually Steve. That's right. Barack Steve Obama. Here's another revelation -- John McCain is on to something."
Being that Ann was in Mombassa without her husband, and being that Obama Sr., would have committed the crime of bigamy in Kenya, if he married a white woman as his second wife — since his first marriage was under tribal law for non-Christians, he could not marry multiple times except under tribal law, which excluded wives of European descent — Ann would have had to put her own surname down on the original Kenyan birth certificate.
This would have enabled her to get Steve on her passport, as the child of an unwed mother; and also be able to get Steve U.S. Citizenship status at birth, on account of the U.S. Nationality laws at the time, which granted such, to children of U.S. Citizens, born out of wedlock, overseas to mothers who were at least 15 years of age. Ann was 18.
While in Mombassa, her mother Madelyn Dunham, who filed some sort of birth fililng, which contained the name “Steve Dunham.”
Upon returning to Hawaii, however, Ann files an amendment to the original filing on the basis of the Hawaiian law which allowed amendments within the first 6 months.
... then, there probably has been a second amendment made, this time by Obama, and sometime after 2004, when he stopped claiming to be Kenyan-born.
That Obama was born in Kenya, he himself admitted to in 1980. Numerous news agencies, including the Associated Press also seemingly confirmed this for years, without being corrected by Obama’s campaigns.
In any event, Obama would not be a natural born citizen because his father was not a U.S. Citizen.
HAWAIIAN STATUTES RESTRICT RELEASE IN CASES WHERE INFORMATION PERTAINS TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES
Legal Analysis by John Charlton
(Sept. 26, 2009) — It’s an oft repeated charge, that neither the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, nor its Communications officer, Janice Okubo, can release information regarding the vital records of Barack Hussein Obama, nor the records themselves, without risking prosecution on account of breaking the law.
Some claims are so strong, that to the common observer they do not appear to be blatant lies. But in this case, such is the case.
Hawaiian Law actually gives Both Fukino and Okubo a loophole to release the information or documents without suffering a penalty of any kind; in fact while Hawaii Revised Statute 92F-17, imposes the lightest of criminal penalties, it similarly offers a loophole for subjective understanding of the law.
[§92F-17] Criminal penalties. (a) An officer or employee of an agency who intentionally discloses or provides a copy of a government record, or any confidential information explicitly described by specific confidentiality statutes, to any person or agency with actual knowledge that disclosure is prohibited, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless a greater penalty is otherwise provided for by law.
Hence so long as both can reasonably prove that they do not know the disclosure violates the law, they can escape all penalties in a civil prosecution, if they make such a release.
This is expressly affirmed by the previous section:
[§92F-16] Immunity from liability. Anyone participating in good faith in the disclosure or nondisclosure of a government record shall be immune from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred, imposed or result from such acts or omissions. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
And the same section specifies grounds for such a release, which they could easily employ as their motive:
§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:
…
(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public; and
Nor does the following section give reasons to refrain from such release:
92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:
(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
Since no one can reasonably believe that documents, redacted as to show the parentage and place of birth of Barack Hussein Obama would invade his privacy: since he has affirmed these facts in public countless times, and these same facts have been refered to in the public statement made by Dr. Fukino in July of this year.
Indeed, Hawaiian law even gives examples of what does not violate privacy interests:
§92F-14 Significant privacy interest; examples.
(a) Disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.
Unless Fukino and Okubo are refraining from releasing the information for the following reason, mentioned in the same section:
(b) The following are examples of information in which the individual has a significant privacy interest:
…
(2) Information identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of criminal law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation or to continue the investigation;
Hence, it seems only reasonable that if Dr. Fukino and Janice Okubo have a rational basis in Hawaiian Law for not releasing to the general public the information which regards Fukino’s public statements, it can only be that they understand the information would lead to the prosecution of Barack Obama for some sort of crime. On the other hand, if they have no rational basis in the law, what could be the motive other than some sort of political agreement with Obama to conceal information pertaining to his birth story?
Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Snarf
This isn't just about Obama. It is about any canidate that is required to prove citizenship for office.
You and some like you made this a strickly Obama thing. A little sensitive I think. Try to look at the bigger picture-Obama or not, the citizens of AZ can now feel more confident that this issue becomes a non-issue in any race forward. Thats all.
Originally posted by drwizardphd
Originally posted by VintageEnvy
As a side note, I do agree with the thinking of every state having something in place like this. I'm surprised it wasn't in place everywhere already.
It wasn't in place because it wasn't necessary and still isn't.
Anybody who runs for president has to have their citizenship and eligibility confirmed by the Federal Election Commission before they can go on any ballot.
This is something that is handled at the federal level, so there is absolutely no need for any state-level verification.
Anyway, considering that Obama has already shown his birth certificate, I don't really know what this legislation hopes to accomplish.
As an Arizona representative put it:
Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema says the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona "the laughing stalk of the nation."
Hammer. Nail. Head.
The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for re-election.
...
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
Similar laws have been proposed in Oklahoma, Florida and Missouri. None have been signed into law.
Democrats criticized Burges' amendment, saying presidential candidates already had to prove their citizenship before they can run for the office.
Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett also expressed concern about Burges' amendment, saying that creating state-level eligibility requirements to run for federal office could violate the U.S. Constitution.
"While everyone has an interest in ensuring that only eligible citizens run for president, there are obvious issues with states implementing what could become a patchwork of different tests for a presidential candidate to prove his/her citizenship," said Bennett's spokesman, Matthew Benson, in an e-mail.
...the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
C. The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate's name on the ballot.