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.

 

"Birther" arrested during Constitution reading

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

"Birther" arrested during Constitution reading


www.politico.com

A woman was arrested in the House gallery Thursday after interrupting a reading of the Constitution by yelling out her belief that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

When Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) read the part of Article II, Section 1 mandating that only a "natural-born citizen" may be president, the woman, seated in the front row of the public gallery, screamed "Except Obama, except Obama. Help us Jesus."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I'm not particularly interested in the "birther" debate per se, and I don't have any real opinions either way, having not paid much attention to it. I consider it part of the dance of distracting partisan politics, the false left-right dicotomy freakshow that only serves to lead away from the real issues.

But while the issue itself doesn't interest me, the way people relate to the government in general interests me a great deal. Does this cry from the balcony represent a lone heckler and nothing more? Or is it a manifestation of something deeper in the national psyche? If so, what? Is this another sign of "normlacy" fraying around the edges, or simply something that happens from time to time in every age?

Discuss.

Here is a video clip of the incident in question:



www.politico.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 1/6/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Why was she arrested? I can understand her being detained for a little while, but arrested?

She had to have done something other then yelling complete nonsense.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


I believe it's a sign that the good citizens of the US are sick of their constitutional rights being violated on a daily bases..

They believe in that " God damn piece of paper"



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Becoming
 


She did not get arrested she just got removed for being disrespectful.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by blangger
 


According to the article the policeman said "you are under arrest. If it says she was removed and let go then I missed that part of the article and would like for you to point it out to me please.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I believe it's a sign that the good citizens of the US are sick of their constitutional rights being violated on a daily bases..


Except in this case the silly woman's constitutional rights were not being violated....



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becoming
Why was she arrested? I can understand her being detained for a little while, but arrested?

She had to have done something other then yelling complete nonsense.


Because it's against the law


The chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the law and rules of the house

edit on 6-1-2011 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Its against the law to voice your opinion during congress?

I wonder why that senator who yelled "you lie" during Obamas address wasn't arrested.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by backinblack
I believe it's a sign that the good citizens of the US are sick of their constitutional rights being violated on a daily bases..


Except in this case the silly woman's constitutional rights were not being violated....


Funny, I swear I saw "feedom of speech" in the constitution somewhere.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


I disagree with you here. Her rights are being violated as every Americans rights are being violated if Obama is not born in The United States.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
I'm not particularly interested in the "birther" debate per se, and I don't have any real opinions either way, having not paid much attention to it. I consider it part of the dance of distracting partisan politics, the false left-right dicotomy freakshow that only serves to lead away from the real issues.
Yeah, you obviously haven't paid much attention to it so thanks for being honest about that.

One of the biggest birthers is Philip J. Berg, a lifelong democrat:


Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States...

Berg stated...– I am a lifelong Democrat [I ran for U.S. Senate & Governor in Democratic Primaries in Pennsylvania] that blows the theory that this is a right wing conspiracy
so your thought that it's partisan shows how little attention you've paid to it.

Obama was probably born in Hawaii but wants to keep some information on his birth certificate secret, like possibly what race he is, I don't know, just guessing. Some people have speculated that if his birth certificate showed his race as caucasian it might be embarrassing for him but since that's his mother's race it's a possibility. I suspect whatever it is, he's hiding something or else he would have just provided his birth certificate like McCain did, and frankly the questions about McCain's eligibility seemed to be more problematic, but the difference was he produced a birth certificate and discussed it in the open, compared to Obama's secrecy in contrast to his campaign of transparency.

So I can sort of understand why the woman who was arrested isn't convinced, but Obama's probably eligible. It would be nice to know for sure though. All the efforts to get him to show one piece of paper have so far been in vain so maybe she's just frustrated by that. Oh and since you're out of the loop, that piece of paper people want to see is the original birth certificate with the doctor's signature, like the one McCain provided. Obama did provide the computer generated version from the state but absent any doctor's signature.

The state of Hawaii has tried to make press releases reassuring people they have the original on file, but of course that just makes them want to see the original that much more. There were also stories raised about the original being possibly destroyed in a fire, or destroyed by the state, etc, and they are being so coy about what they actually have that nobody outside the office of the state officials seems to know what kind of original record they've got for Obama that would support their computer generated paper.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
If he WASN'T legally born in U.S.A/Hawaii the MSM would be the 1st ones, 2 years ago, to make notice and call him out... if you think otherwise, then what side are you on? MSM or not?

Sometimes I don't understand people

LMAO



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
If he WASN'T legally born in U.S.A/Hawaii the MSM would be the 1st ones, 2 years ago, to make notice and call him out... if you think otherwise, then what side are you on? MSM or not?
Funny!

I don't think I have the conviction of Lou Dobbs, part of MSM, he supposedly walked away from $9 million over this stuff:

'Birther' stories led to Lou Dobbs' resignation


Dobbs, who also hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, told his radio audience in July that "even though I said I believe the president is a citizen of the United States, I don't understand why he shouldn't produce a birth certificate. My God, you're talking about the third rail of American journalism, baby! That's it. I'm not going to back off."
I have limits to what I'd do for $9 million, like I wouldn't hurt or kill anybody, but I'd probably shut up about that piece of paper the president never produced. The fact that he wouldn't back off shows that he must have felt pretty strongly about it, and apparently such rhetoric wasn't welcome in MSM.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Its against the law to voice your opinion during congress?

I wonder why that senator who yelled "you lie" during Obamas address wasn't arrested.



Because that was a State of the Union address... not the Congressional session

Didn't you listen to the video?


"The chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the law and rules of the house"

edit on 6-1-2011 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



Because that was a State of the Union address... not the Congressional session


Well the State of the Union will not be that flash if it's proven Obama is hiding his true birth place..

I'd say it was an ideal time to raise the question...



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
The fact that one of the first things Obama did once he got into office was sealing his records doesnt really help his case. In my opinion, however, it doesnt really matter if Obama was born in the united states or not, he is a puppet all the same.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Funny, I swear I saw "feedom of speech" in the constitution somewhere.


Obviously that means that while you are having a wake for your deceased mother in your home, I can just run in and scream obscenities becuase free speech is a total free for all to just say anything any time any place, right?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Becoming
Why was she arrested? I can understand her being detained for a little while, but arrested?

She had to have done something other then yelling complete nonsense.


Because it's against the law


The chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the law and rules of the house

edit on 6-1-2011 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)


Does that mean she had entered a "no free speech zone" is that right curtailed in the peoples house?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45

Does that mean she had entered a "no free speech zone" is that right curtailed in the peoples house?


It means in our society we have agreed that there is a time and a place for certain things. If an adult cannot control themselves in polite society, this is how we agreed to treat them in general. For that matter, taking an issue that people think is a little "crazy" and screaming about it like an idiot does not a good case make.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join