It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:36 AM

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!

Did he ever produce that long form that was demanded? How about you catch up. He went before congress and they rubber stamped his citizenship.

No long form was produced and there is still doubt that he was born on the base but hey, why let reality get in your way now?

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:41 AM
reply to post by K J Gunderson

Read the full article in the link I provided.

Yes, this information is deemed to be true by the article.

a youtube video has also been provided that clearly shows Obama admitting he has a middle name of 'Steve'...

at 1:37 - he mentions "In the spirit of full disclosure discloses that his full name is Barack "Steve" Obama.

the Chicago Sun Times, the town Barack hailed from during his campaigne, published the quip as well.

"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."

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:47 AM

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 rather interesting to note that during his quip, obama, in the same paragraph he admits his name is Barack Steve Obama, he states...

"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."

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:56 AM
There is also a Steve Dunham on record as having been born in Kenya...

The name “Steve Dunham” was the name of the child on the birth certificate in the Mombasa General Coast Hospital

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.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:00 AM
reply to post by DarkspARCS

The environment in which Obama made this statement was absolutely perfect because it enabled him to make a disclosure in the spirit of humor. Now he can simply defend the quip as merely a joke said during a roast.

Michelle Obama made a statement at a well publicized round table at the University of Missouri during the campaign where she was quoted as saying that Obama's mother "was very young and very single" when she had little Barry. This statement was hardly a quip or a Freudian slip and further serves to raise the question. Too many lies to remember.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by jibeho]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:13 AM
Does Fukino's & Okubo's silence indicate they believe Obama has committed a crime?


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?

They had every legal right to disclose the long form birth certificate, but lied about the law, and used that lie to refuse disclosure.

It's my belief that a demand should be made to incriminate the two officials from Hawaii for willful violation of law, and for obstruction of Constitutional justice.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:17 AM
I really don't get this whole birther thing. What an incredible waste of energy. Besides it doesn't matter where a turd falls out, it's still a turd. Obama doesn't have to be from a foreign country to be a vile corrupted corporatist puppet, which is exactly what he is. Oh yeah and another in quite a long line of puppet presidents who are criminals and murderers. That should be enough to get rid of him but I guess that won't happen till people get physically get out the pitch forks and head for D.C.

As for Arizona, at least they have been trying to do something with their legislation lately which is more than I can say for most people/groups.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:37 AM
Just a question: If this law should pass and Obama either does not run in 2012 (for what ever reason given) or does not appear on Arizona's ballot, then what does that mean?

Just curious and thought I would ask since I did not see anyone else ask the obvious question.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

I have no idea how you came up with the idea that certain pictures I used were somehow related to something you didn't like. Relax.

Would this make you feel better? It's a little big and airbrushed really nicely. Just some more of the smoke/mirrors and make up hiding this man and what he is up to. Guess we'll see come election time 2012.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:45 AM
not one single birther among all of you could offer even a lazy answer, let alone a truthful one. None of you even tried.

To me, and many others, this says that you're not interested in FACTS, your'e only interested in making Obama look bad.

But in your world, you can't be wrong, so there's no need to prepare for it. Except that, when all is said and done, and all these states adopt this new policy requiring him to, once again, show his birth certificate in the 2012 election, and you are proven wrong, again, you'll have no outlet for your ego to run to....what will happen then?

MY guess is a rift in the space-time continuum that will result in the end of the world.


Wow, the Mayans were right. Whodathunkit?

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Snarf]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:51 AM
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.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:51 AM
Its sad only arizona is doing this, and just now!

Its probly b/c that mccain fellow is from there isnt it?

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:54 AM

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.

You all beat around the bush so much that it's lightyears beyond laughable.. It really is.

This thread, in its creation, was about Barack Obama.

The image contained at the header?: Barack Obama

The first snippet from the OP:
It's a step in the right direction for future canidates-including Obama come 2012.

Including Barack Obama.

Do you all think we're so stupid as to believe that this is some sort of noble cause that has no predisposition to tie the lousy, lame, spineless birther movement to a cause?

This was bred from the stupidity surrounding the birther movement. It was bred from their inability to absorb facts and comprehend them.

He's shown his birth certificate.

All i did was ask a simple question - and not a single one of you is WILLING to answer it.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Snarf]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:09 AM
Wow, so much fighting and stress over another NWO head, no wonder it's (the NWO) is doing so well...


posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:15 AM

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.

Actually you are wrong.
And Obama has only shown his short form birth certificate.
Remember a long form birth certificate is what is used to enforce the 14th Amendment, and the 16th Amendment.
Because it is a CONTRACT.
Believe me. The long form is somewhere. Without it, the contracts of the 14th and 16th Amendments would not be enforceable.

The states electors vote on President and it is up to each state to vet the potential candidates.

A Federal Agency can vet anyone that they please, but you must remember that we are still a republic and within that republic is a foreign corporation called the Federal Government of the United States.

States rights will ALWAYS trump federal, according to the Constitution (read the 10th Amendment).
That doesn't mean that the Feds will not try and convince the populace that the opposite is the actual truth, but it doesn't matter. Because even if they do it, it is considered unconstitutional and it will continue to occur until challenged in a court of law.

Until the 10th Amendment is repealed, then the STATE ELECTORS decide who will be voted upon for president and the Federal Government has not a darn thing to do with it.

It would probably help you to read the majority decision written by Justice Rehnquist in the Bush V Gore case.

This was a states rights case.
It may seem like the states lost, but if you actually read the decision it empowered the states.

I recommend reading as much case law as possible concerning this issue, because it is not on the side of team Obama.

The Federal Judge's that have been saving his butt so far have been doing so under Admiralty Law, and once this gets out, then hopefully the people of this country will realize exactly how screwed we have become.

(I am not in any way a "right winger". I always vote Nader, but I am a concerned and educated citizen)

[edit on 4/20/2010 by Josephus23]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:00 AM
This legislation doesn't seem to require the "long form" birth certificate that birthers are clamoring to see. Does anyone have the actual bill so we can see what it says?

In 2012, when Obama shows his short form BC to get on the ballot, and is approved by the Secretary of State of AZ, how many birthers are going to accept that? I would venture to say NONE.

That's just one reason I think this is a mistake.

From the article in the OP:

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.

He has already shown "documents". Will this bill require that the documents are verified by a documents specialist or something? Does it require that it be posted on the internet to calm the birthers? That worked so well last time!

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.

AZ Central

There are also potential problems with this being done on a state-by state basis:

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.

I'm ALL FOR a federal check of candidates' eligibility, because it's a federal level position, but I don't think state level requirements should be pursued,

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:08 AM
Any state that enacts a law like this runs the risk of having the Supreme Court rule that it's citizens' right to suffrage was being infringed. Remember, the citizens are actually giving instructions to the Electoral College. Putting this restriction in place limits their ability to give instructions to the Electors.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:21 AM
Here's the Amendment - HB 2441

...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.

"Documents"... not "long form BC.

My predictions:

1. This will not satisfy the birthers.
2. This will not pass or will be unconstitutional, because we can't have 50 Secretaries of State playing documents specialists willy nilly.

This HAS to be a federal function, which I totally support.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I agree with you BH - it's not going to satisfy them. It already hasn't. Which begs the question "Why do we even try?"

It must be a sickness i have to want to shove truth down the throats of those allergic to it.

But unfortunately, no matter how hard i shove, they just keep vomiting it back up.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:32 PM
Contrary to belief, I am not the typical Birther. Not a birther at all but I don't want to argue if you think I am fine. What I am though is someone that seeks the truth.

This maybe able to be solved-at least partially with this action. Now, maybe someone has done this already and it has been beaten to death-ten times-okay then. Here you go.

Has anyone from that island that was born around the same time period in question (related to Obamas birthdate) recently requested and subsequently obtained the Long BC form (completed copy) or have all attempts been responded to via the Short BC form (the type Obama possesses)?

Another one just popped into my head. Someone wrote something about the Obama BC footprint. Well, first, how reliable is a baby footprint in comparion to that same person around 50 years later? I assume the bottom of the foot changes too much to make any valid comparison.

If I am wrong though and CSI types use footprints as a formal means of ID, then: You work for us-you want to keep the job, take off your shoes, step on the ink pad and then onto the paper-Sir. End of story-one way or the other.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in