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.

 

Texas Taking Obama off the Ballot for 2012

page: 1
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Right now live @ the oil palace Gov. Rick Perry is stating Texas will not put obama on the ballot with out proof of citizenship. We will fall in line with Arizona.




Arizona House: Obama Must Show His Birth Certificate for 2012 Ballot Inclusion
By Tom White, on April 22nd, 2010, at 9:17 am

If President Obama, or any future presidential candidate wants to be on the ballot in Arizona, they may be required to show their original birth certificate, something Obama has refused to do. The Arizona House passed legislation with the new requirement yesterday.

The bill must continue it’s path to final passage and the governor’s signature, but this idea is already catching on in other states.

State Rep. Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross) has introduced a similar measure in Georgia, Florida is working on it, and others are preparing to follow suit.


www.varight.com...

Let it begin

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.



[edit on 26/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Rick Perry is doing everything he can to keep the far right wing tea party votes. He knows he in for a tough election as even Republicans dislike him. Many have said they will probably vote for a Democrat for the first time in their lives instead of Rick Perry.

He is simply trying to get the Tea Party vote in Texas. He is scared to death of a strong independent siphoning off the conservative vote.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Actual Link

The blog is wrong, anyway.



Arizona House: Obama Must Show His Birth Certificate for 2012 Ballot Inclusion


The AZ bill says that candidates must show "documents". It doesn't specify a birth certificate, let alone the original, long form BC.


[edit on 4/25/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
We sure get some BRILLIANT folks out of Texas, huh? He is just as ignorant as our former President who ALSO was from Texas. Obama's GENUINE birth certificate scans can be found NUMEROUS places on the web. Then again, perhaps that Einstein from Texas does not know how to operate a computer yet. IDIOTS.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


Governor "Toll Road Perry" aka Gardasil Perry is a true friend to globalists and drug companies. This amounts to political pandering at best.

PTB has the voting machines rigged, but they know they can only play with the margins to swing elections or people revolt.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This would actually be a good law since it will end ALL DEBATE!

There would not be constant back and forth partisan rediculousness happening if people would be forced to show documents in the first place. I didn;t care at first, but now since it has been vehemently hidden from public view, I would love to see what it shows, and what they do not want the public to know.
People never hide anything unless they are afraid of people finding out something. Pretty simple really. And spending millions to keep it hidden there must be something damaging in there. Yet again, pretty simple.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Obama is the POTUS.

If he wants a birth certificate forged, he will get one.

In my humble opinion, the CSI/FBI/other secret services of the U.S would not have "missed" something like a birth certificate without having the know how to fix/set up/finish the problem at hand.

Maybe I am wrong, but for such positions of power I think they would at least a tad smart.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The AZ bill says that candidates must show "documents". It doesn't specify a birth certificate, let alone the original, long form BC.


That's a good point BH. I went and looked up what counts as proof of citizenship for a US passport since presumably if it's good enough for a passport it'll be good enough as far as this bill is concerned.


Source
Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):

* Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
* Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state (see following Note)
* Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
* Naturalization Certificate
* Certificate of Citizenship

Note: 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.


Of the above only the second one would definitively prove natural born status. A passport can be obtained whether you're natural born or not, if you're naturalized you weren't born here, a certificate of citizenship is for those born abroad to US parents, and being born abroad is an iffy area to begin with.

Then there is secondary evidence:


Source
Early Public Records

If you were born in the United States and cannot present primary evidence of U.S. citizenship, you may submit a combination of early public records as evidence of your U.S. citizenship. Early public records must be submitted together with a birth record or Letter of No Record (see below). Early public records should show your name, date of birth, place of birth, and preferably be created within the first five years of your life. Examples of early public records are:

* Baptismal certificate
* Hospital birth certificate
* Census record
* Early school record
* Family bible record
* Doctor's record of post-natal care

Early Public Records are not acceptable when presented alone.


The second link contains more than I quoted, but nothing I see that would definitively prove natural born status. The only thing I see in the part I quoted would be the hospital birth certificate since you presumably can't get one of those unless you're actually born at that particular hospital. The problem with that is that it's not accepted on it's own, only in conjunction with other secondary evidence.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Captain_Sense
We sure get some BRILLIANT folks out of Texas, huh? He is just as ignorant as our former President who ALSO was from Texas. Obama's GENUINE birth certificate scans can be found NUMEROUS places on the web. Then again, perhaps that Einstein from Texas does not know how to operate a computer yet. IDIOTS.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The birth certificate scans available on the net are considered "short forms" which legally are documents that ONLY certify the existence of such a certificate, and they are given a title such as certification of birth certificate, birth certificate of live birth, or certification of birth. ( they are just summaries stating that A birth certificate exists and the data is also summarized.)

The "long form" is a copy of the ACTUAL birth record with much more
data and original signatures, and that is what all the controversy
is about as it has not been provided to date.


Hope this clears up our alledged "ignorance"






[

[edit on 25-4-2010 by manta78]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Yes.
And the document that Obama posted on the web and Factcheck.org examined is a certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state. It has a raised, embossed seal, the date it was filed and a registrar's signature. So it would be accepted as proof of citizenship.

Ultimately, this law gives the secretary of state in 50 states the sole power in determining whether or not the documents presented are good enough. Bad idea, IMO. The SoS is not a documents expert.

IMO, this certification should be done on a federal level.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I wasn't talking about Obama, I was speaking in general regarding what's considered evidence of citizenship and listing what documents qualify since the bill says 'document' and not 'birth certificate'.


And yes it should be done at a federal level. I was honestly shocked to find out that there isn't any type of verification done when someone runs for president aside from them just saying they qualify. Regardless of how anyone feels about Obama or any other past or future president, verification should be done on everyone who wants to run for president.

Edit: spelling

[edit on 25-4-2010 by Jenna]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


"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."
This is exactly what needs to be in the Bill. Only those who object to this Bill would have something to hide.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Jenna
 


Yes.
And the document that Obama posted on the web and Factcheck.org examined is a certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state. It has a raised, embossed seal, the date it was filed and a registrar's signature. So it would be accepted as proof of citizenship.


Would you please provide a link to that image please.
Regards,



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I'm not commenting on the Texas proposal, the Arizona law, or even giving my opinion on Obama's eligibility. I'm only commenting on the following sentence:


Originally posted by UfoSpecial
.... People never hide anything unless they are afraid of people finding out something. ....


This is wrong. In the U.S. we each have the right to hide NOTHING. I don't mean that we don't have the right to hide things, but that unless there is a legally compelling reason to show something, I don't have to show it, for no other reason than I don't want to.

It amazes me that so many ATS posters fall right in line with the argument of "if you have nothing to hide then show it."

Before the flamers start, I'm explicitly NOT saying if I think there is a legally compelling reason for Obama to show more information, I'm only talking about the attitude of "if you have nothing to hide, show it because if you're hiding something it must mean you don't want others to know about something that's probably bad."

It might just mean I don't think what I'm not showing you is any of your business. It could even be as simple as I don't want to bother making the effort of showing you something that I don't care if you know about or not.

Quit falling for the propaganda that says "if you don't want someone to know what you're doing, maybe you shouldn't be doing it."



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010
 


Perry has no constitutional standing to make that demand. The constitution does not specifically demand a 'long form' birth certificate as proof of eligibility and eligibility is left to the congress and the elections specifically for the december 15th confirmation. The house speaker has to further confirm the presidents eligibility and that all was already done. He is not obligated anywhere in the constitution to have to satisfy everybody with his natural born citizenship. This is a Republic after all, not a Democracy, right?

But obviously Mr Perry and his followers would make any excuse to keep Obama off the ballot. What a way to uphold the constitution by preventing the president from being voted in. Wonderful.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Yes.
And the document that Obama posted on the web and Factcheck.org examined is a certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state. It has a raised, embossed seal, the date it was filed and a registrar's signature. So it would be accepted as proof of citizenship.


I dont understand it. Why is it that with every birther legislation, or some law regarding eligibility, is there always this flaw that they are not specific? With all the current birther bills the president could just simply pull out his current certification of birth to prove so (in the very unlikely scenario). Whats more confusing, the fact that the decision of the authenticity of an Hawaiian birth certificate should be supposedly left to Arizonan and Texan authorities to dictate as authentic? There are plenty of holes within these laws, proposals, legislation and I fail to see where this will satisfy birthers?

Iv come to the conclusion that these laws are just meant to be controversial, that they are not necessarily to solve the issues of birthers. Heck I'd bet my bottom dollar even the politicians know these bills are completely useless to the issue at hand, but heck, its election time right?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
I wasn't talking about Obama,


I know.
I was kind of addressing the topic of the thread with that. People are getting excited over this AZ state bill requiring proof, because it means (supposedly) that it will 'force' Obama to show his long form BC. I'm just saying that he has a 'document' that will suffice, so the AZ bill is pretty worthless. And unless other states that are planning to do this are more specific and ask for the long form, a LOT of people aren't going to be so excited come 2012 when Barry shows up on the ballot and no long form is forthcoming.



I was honestly shocked to find out that there isn't any type of verification done when someone runs for president aside from them just saying they qualify.


I was, too.


Originally posted by Violater1
Would you please provide a link to that image please.


Sure.

www.factcheck.org...

There's also an interesting image in this post.


Originally posted by AquaDuck
It amazes me that so many ATS posters fall right in line with the argument of "if you have nothing to hide then show it."


I completely agree! I can't imagine living in a world (or a country) where I felt compelled to reveal everything, lest I be charged with trying to hide something. We have the right to keep things private. And that doesn't "mean" anything. People have forgotten what it means to respect others' rights. :shk:


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I dont understand it. Why is it that with every birther legislation, or some law regarding eligibility, is there always this flaw that they are not specific?


These legislators in these states are trying to get votes for 2010. That's IT. They don't want to really change anything, or they WOULD have required the long form. They just want to make some innocuous and impotent "law" that will hit the news as "Obama will not be on the ballot without the Long Form"! so they can gain the support of the birthers and tea partiers and maybe even some Republicans and Democrats in their state elections later this year.

And you're right. The TPs and birthers are going to be pretty damn mad when they discover they've been taken. This will, in no way, satisfy birthers. They're not reading the bill. Just assuming that the long form is going to be required.


Heck I'd bet my bottom dollar even the politicians know these bills are completely useless to the issue at hand, but heck, its election time right?


Right.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
What I would like to know is that why now?

Why after 234 years are people suddenly interested in passing such a law?

I have heard similar proposal about English only as well.

I admit i was skeptical about Obama's bc as well. But when I seriously thought about it, he went through the same system all other candidates have gone through.

Furthermore, as many have stated. It wouldn't be that hard for a high profiled and influential person to get a legit BC. After all, money talks.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
What I would like to know is that why now?


I would like to know that, too.
They're making these laws now because of the 2010 elections, but why is Obama the first person who was ever challenged like this? So, someone started a rumor and it grew legs. But why was it so easy for so many people to pick up this rumor and believe it so whole-heartedly that it became a 'movement' with it's own name???

What's different about Obama that might tickle at people's fears and doubts, making this rumor so attractive to latch onto for so many?

It's a good question.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010
 


I think that's great. Can we now finally rid ourselves of Texas and any reminders of the Godforsaken hell hole?
I would be willing to trade it off to the Mexicans in exchange for Acapulco.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join