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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Stewie
I think I will show the Obama family some respect, and take Michelle's word that Barack's home country is Kenya.
Has HE ever said Michelle Obama is a LIAR?
There is also news that Kenya was once one of the United States, but effectively seceded (along with six others) shortly after Obama's birth. I saw a document on the internet, so I know it is true. It even had a raised seal.

correct me if i missed any sarcasm in that post but...

care to give a source or a link to this document?

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:32 PM
It's embarassing when my home state does something as stupid as this.

Seriously, sometimes I think we're losing our grip on reality.

The Supreme Court needs to step in and take control of these rogue state legislatures through appropriate rulings.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Retseh]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:39 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet but...

The problem I have with the "official birth certificate" that all of the people are defending, is that it does not have the vital information needed to prove that he was born in the U.S.

I don't know but if we're looking at it from a conspiracy point of view, they could have just printed a new birth certificate (Which it is), paid off people to certify it and satisfy the public.

Now, comparing an actual 1960's era birth certificate to the one shown for Obama, it looks quite different.

1960's era birthcertificate

Obama's new birth certificate

It does not have any signatures of the parents/witnesses, hospital etc. If they showed the long hand version of it, it would quell any resistance to the matter. In my opinion, no signatures of parents/guardians and witnesses is not valid in this case, but that's just me.

I'm aware Whatukno showed that Hawaii does not issue any long form documents anymore because their in an "electronic database". To me that is just ignorant on Hawaii's case.

In 2006, I had to order a new birth certificate from the California Department of Health Services because my original long form got destroyed. Guess what? They had the original in an electronic database and printed the image onto a new piece of paper, that included all of the vital information that is necessary to prove my legal birth.

Here is an image of a birth certificate that looks exactly like mine.

California reprinted long form

So, Hawaii does have the long form birth certificate in an electronic database, but does not print them anymore (Ignorant in my opinion). They wont even print one to show the legal birth of the President of the United States? Give me a break... If California of all places can do it for a lowly citizen like me, I'm sure Hawaii can do it for the President.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:45 PM
Seriously people, 2 independent local Hawaii newspapers published the birth announcement when he was born IN HAWAII.

Are people suggesting that those editors were in on the conspiracy to make him president right from birth?

Personally I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstance, but this entire birther fiasco is making the US look like a bunch of loons to the rest of the world.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by Aggie Man

Don't get so touchy all you obamabots. Although this bill wouldn't exist without this presidents lack of credentials (no he has NOT shown a birth certificate) This should be looked upon as a security measure for all future presidential elections. It has been unreasonable for this egomaniac to put the portion of the electorate that are concerned with the question of his legitimacy in such a state that people feel this extra bit of assurance is necessary.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Clisen33
If California of all places can do it for a lowly citizen like me, I'm sure Hawaii can do it for the President.

They probably would do it for the president if he requested it. As to why he hasn't requested it, we don't know. All we can do is speculate.

Just a reminder: This bill does NOT require the long form BC. It just requires "documents".

[edit on 4/20/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Snarf
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]

I'm not a 'birther'. Frankly, I'm interested in all of the falsehoods Obama has preached to the American Public to fraudulently get elected to a position he does not belong in, and the Fascist Legislation he's been proposing and even threatening folks with violence in order to get it passed.

I However, DID provide all the proof needed for this topic to make it all the way to the supreme court, which Clarance Thomas unfortunately admitted that they were "Evading" this very issue... WHY?

It seems to me Snarf, that you're in this topic with ignorant debate due to the color of skin, vs. the threat of injustice, the threatening losses of freedom, and the exploitation of people's resources, and rights.

If you are here just to propose ignorant solutions to a very real problem, please move along, your innate immaturity and unprovoked derogatory character defamation of folks debating this topic is not welcome here.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by DarkspARCS]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:50 PM
Silly me... I was going to post a link to the Newspaper birth announcements from the Honolulu Advertiser in 1961. Then I realized that all of the evidence that supports a domestic birth has already been presented. It's useless to continue arguing....

Arizona... Pffft... whatever....

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:50 PM
Upon request I can show a birht certificate, signed in pen by the delivering physician with the name of the hospital right under the inked footprints of my newborn feet. It is in my home right now. How many here born in the USA can't say that?

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by Retseh

I just read the paper and it does look interesting and quite possibly quells the matter at hand. I want to discuss it more, but I have to get to college, friggin ATS is addicting and its gonna make me fail my test! LOL.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by OverSword

Those are worthless as far as valid documents. They are "souvenir" birth certificates.

Originally posted by Clisen33
The problem I have with the "official birth certificate" that all of the people are defending, is that it does not have the vital information needed to prove that he was born in the U.S.

Yes it does:

Birthplace: Honolulu, Hawaii

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I responded to your question to me (on page 5 I think). I U2U also.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:03 PM
I really think its a moot point, i think everyone realizes that if push came to shove that Obama could produce evidence real or not that would be considered legitimate by the courts. If not, the NWO really needs to up their game.

However, i dont think the people who are referred to as "birthers" should be chatised and ridiculed for what they percieve as a lack of evidence of his citizenship.

The same people who are ridiculing the "birthers" on ATS surely believe in other conspiracies that others would deem ridiculous or without merit. In which case only time will tell who is right and who is wrong, i think the birthers deserve the same courtesy, let it all play out and time will tell who was right.

Right, Wrong, or Indifferent the minute we as a people stop asking questions and demanding answers from our government, it marks the beginning of the end.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by ElijahWan

He demonstrated his certificate of live birth, not a birth certificate........they are 2 distinct shows a live baby is present in the state, the other is documentation that a doctor witnessed the birth in a state of the u.s. the certificate of live birth only says the baby was born alive and not thing proves what state.....only that he is in whatever state issues it.....per se his mom moved there, etc...and wanted him to be issued a document to make him a citizen after the fact......because SHE was a citizen of the u.s. see the he was not born here the other he was and is a legal born u.s. citizen, the other he is just allowed here with his mom.........please people realize there are 2 document......because there are and that is what this argument is about. He has not openly shown his birth certificate.....also he did not sign up for selective service.....if he was a u.s. born male he would have had too........during the time frame ........also........what is his "real name" what does his live birth cert say.......does it say "barry...." or barak obama...........there are incosistencies here .....that have been pushed back and back.........McCain had to prove his eligibility........why not Mr. Obama...........wake up U.S. Citizens.............wake up.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:24 PM
Although I'm really pleased with Arizona's open carry work (& now hopeful that texas will follow), I think this is not can I put this? The president has done plenty of things that I think he should kicked out of office for (although that could leave us with Biden or Pelosi or Clinton- Yikes! NONE of those would work for me!), but I think this is kind of melodramatic. Not necessarily "impeachable" in a traditional sense, though possibly.

I have no idea whether he's an American citizen or not. I just think he's done things that are a lot worse and to point to this takes away from those. It would be too easy and would do nothing to prevent the same kind of bad behavior in the future (like not impeaching Bush/Cheney paved the way for Obama). What kind of precedent does it set for someone to do a complete 180 on their campaign promises or have backroom deals right in our faces? I don't care if he was born on the steps of the WH, sometimes, the things he has done are even worse than Bush.

I wish we had just said NO. Neither of these guys are acceptable. Do it over.
Hope that makes sense.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by DarkspARCS
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."

Actually, I think you need to read it again. Let me see if I can translate it for you again. The article is saying that his FIRST NAME IS STEVE. You have flimsy evidence of him saying his middle name is STEVE. You have NO evidence his first name is Steve. An exhaustive search for proof his name was Steve turned up NOTHING. The conclusion...his name is Steve? Yeah, make that make sense for me.

No proof or even evidence his first name is really Steve means that his first name must really be Steve?

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:11 PM

Originally posted by speaknoevil07
reply to post by ElijahWan

He demonstrated his certificate of live birth, not a birth certificate........they are 2 distinct things.....

They are both birth certificates in Hawaii.

Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth.

If you will not accept the short form, verified by Hawaiian officials, clearly showing the president to being born in Hawaii, having a longer form with extra information will not make a different, unless you intend to hound the doctor to further this conspiracy.

one he was not born here

He was born here and verified by Hawaiian officials. Im sorry you cannot accept that fact, but thats what it is, fact. Unless you can get Kenyan health department authorites to claim him as Kenyan born from records you have no case.

what is his "real name" what does his live birth cert say.......does it say "barry...."

Your ignorance over the matter is just astounding. The name 'Barry' was not a legal name.

McCain had to prove his eligibility........

yes, he proved his eligibility by showing his short form birth certificate.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Southern Guardian]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:13 PM

Originally posted by djzombie
I don't know why you all can't see it but every copy of that bc i see makes it look more and more fake.

Because we know what a real one should look like and damn if that aint it!

How about you show us what a real current Hawaiian birth certificate is supposed to look like?

I used to work at a printing company so it was my job to spot imperfections before and after they came off of the press.

Why do none of you experts ever show us what real one you are using for comparison? Got one issued in the last ten years to compare with? Get a current long form and slap it up here.

This document looks like it was printed no less than a year ago. Aside from the obvious intentional folds - there is no visible wear and tear on the document, aside from a few things that would have remained from a scanned and photoshopped document, like the wear and tear on the hawaii symbol, the top text and the signature stamps.

So you think that the same people that ISSUE and CONFIRM birth certificates could not just produce a new one? They have to photocopy and alter an old one? You do realize they print new ones every day, right? Why photocopy and alter one when they can just print a new one. A REAL one that could be full of lies? Can you explain that logic?

The text on the document looks photoshopped because there is not single sign of ink bleeding into the paper, everything is too neat and clean like an old birth certificate was scanned for the seals and stamps(notice the wear and tear on both the hawaii insignia and the signature stamps, but none on the rest of the text, which takes up far less space than the seal does. Surely there should be some consistency with ink decay if this was a real bc.

Glad you got a star for this because it seems like you might need that kind of encouragement to keep up this line of reasoning. I could not do it with all the strenght I ever had.

Let us go over it again. The people that make, print, issue, and confirm birth certificates - could not just print one up to say whatever they wanted. Instead, they photocopied an old one and then did a crappy job faking it. What planet does this make sense on?

You can say what you want - that this is all the proof hes required to give and that may be so - but I'm personally not convinced, though this is just my own personal opinion - we can agree to disagree.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by djzombie]

Can you tell me, please. What good is this opinion of yours about how fake his is without providing an example of what you think a real one should look like? If you have no clue, then what are you actually looking at?

We already had another "print expert" try to say it was fake because the border down both sides overlapped the bottom and that was obviously fake. Too bad that when you go and look at a real Hawaiin BC, that is exactly how the border looks on ALL OF THEM.

You can say all you want about what you think is fake but until you people start showing us what it SHOULD look like, this is obviously just an anti-Obama tactic set up to have NO RESOLUTION WHATSOEVER.

Any of you birthers that keep whining about wanting the truth, feel free to go find some truth and prove me wrong.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by djzombie]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Do you ever feel like banging your head on a wall??

How many times have you presented the same information to different posters in this one thread alone. Let alone the other threads on the same topic.

Cheers to you for trying. But this issue will never go away until people are satisfied by seeing a document in the hands of Obama himself. We all know that will never happen.

These threads will continue in the same way that the 9/11 threads continue to flourish. Don't be surprised if you see a dedicated forum some day.

There is a motive behind the deliberate mystery surrounding this topic and the related branches of Obama's past. Just look at the rift that has been created because of it. A rift that could easily be calmed by a man with something to hide in his past.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by speaknoevil07
He demonstrated his certificate of live birth, not a birth certificate........they are 2 distinct things...........please people realize there are 2 document......

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. The information on a Certificate of Live Birth is taken DIRECTLY from the long form Birth Certificate. This has been sourced MANY times here on ATS.

Source 1

Source 2

Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as "Certification of Birth", "Certification of Live Birth", or "Certificate of Birth Registration."

Originally posted by speaknoevil07
only that he is in whatever state issues it.....per se his mom moved there, etc...and wanted him to be issued a document to make him a citizen after the fact

HERE is a thread that will explain your mistake (WITH SOURCES) about the assumption you're making above.

Your post is FULL of factual errors.

I will present it as long as I think it might educate someone.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in