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.

 

Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law Obama will have to produce birth certificate to r

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 

Exactly! California did away with short forms because of the fraud problems with the short forms.

www.sccgov.org... 4a92____


California law allowed for the issuance of abstracts for a period. Due to the increase of fraud, outside agencies became stricter in the forms of vital records they would accept, so State law was changed so abstracts are no longer issued. Unfortunately, that means you will probably need to replace any abstracts with a newer full certified copy. If you have an abstract issued from our office, please contact us to discuss replacement.


So they set a precedent for doing that. I don't know why other states aren't following suit, but I posed it as a question and I don't have an answer. Maybe the other states aren't having as much of a fraud problem as California did? But if there's a best practice for minimizing fraud, I'm all for standardizing on the best practice. I suspect most people are except the criminals who want to perpetrate fraud.

So if the long form helps reduce fraud, I'm all for it. Fraudulent ID problems might cost US taxpayers $100 billion dollars a year, though some of that relates to documents other than the birth certificate, but the birth certificate is the "breeder document" from which many of the other fraudulent documents originate.

The other advantage of the CA approach is, if all states did that, there would not be any debate about "long form versus short form" like there is with Obama and this AZ bill. If there's only one form, nobody can argue about it.




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If there's only one form, nobody can argue about it.


not true, currently Hawaii only issues one form, as Obama has posted, but some birthers still argue with it. Which shows it is not about any bit of paper Obama produces.
edit on 26/1/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The other advantage of the CA approach is, if all states did that, there would not be any debate about "long form versus short form" like there is with Obama and this AZ bill. If there's only one form, nobody can argue about it.


Sounds great but it is a little hard to reach from here where I am in reality with Obama not being born in CA and all. Oh well.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Sounds great but it is a little hard to reach from here where I am in reality with Obama not being born in CA and all. Oh well.
Don't be so obsessed with it being an Obama issue. The AZ bill doesn't even mention Obama (Though we can guess they were thinking of him).


It's a bigger issue with how any future candidate's eligibility will be determined. Obama just happens to be in the firing line now but there will be future presidents too where these issues might come up.

The Arizona legislation would be an example of this, they are proposing a standard of evidence of meeting constitutional requirements for all future candidates, not just Obama.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Don't be so obsessed with it being an Obama issue. The AZ bill doesn't even mention Obama (Though we can guess they were thinking of him).


Seems to be an issue with you. Didn't you just try to tell me a post specifically naming Obama was not about Obama in another thread?


Thread title:

Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law Obama will have to produce birth certificate to


I am not sure why you think this thread is not about Obama when apparently the author who picked this article to qutoe does.


It's a bigger issue with how any future candidate's eligibility will be determined. Obama just happens to be in the firing line now but there will be future presidents too where these issues might come up.


Obama happens to be the subject of this thread per the title and ongoing discussion.


The Arizona legislation would be an example of this, they are proposing a standard of evidence of meeting constitutional requirements for all future candidates, not just Obama.


Yeah, they are proposing baloney.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If there's only one form, nobody can argue about it.


not true, currently Hawaii only issues one form, as Obama has posted, but some birthers still argue with it. Which shows it is not about any bit of paper Obama produces.
You took my quote out of context my friend. I clearly prefaced that with calling it the CA approach which eliminated the short form:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The other advantage of the CA approach is, if all states did that, there would not be any debate about "long form versus short form" like there is with Obama and this AZ bill. If there's only one form, nobody can argue about it.


See the preface about the CA approach opening that statement? I get accused of writing long sentences sometimes but then when I shorten them someone tries to disregard what's in the previous sentence but the same paragraph.

The short form does beg for controversy because it's saying that "This document says there's another document somewhere that proves this". If you're looking for proof of something, that seems a little silly, why get a document saying there's another document when as CA does now, eliminates that step and just provide the document that provides the proof? I think there's a case to be made for that based on logic alone, even though legally, the Hawaii method is accepted for now. When you add fraud prevention arguments to the logical arguments, you really have to wonder why short forms are issued at all. Well California wondered, and they stopped issuing them.

So clearly, I meant standardizing as California has done, and not as Hawaii has done.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The short form does beg for controversy because it's saying that "This document says there's another document somewhere that proves this". If you're looking for proof of something, that seems a little silly, why get a document saying there's another document when as CA does now, eliminates that step and just provide the document that provides the proof?


You are funny. I hate to tell you this but the long form serves the same purpose as the short form. No matter how long your birth certificate is, it only serves to certify there is a birth registration somewhere. If your problem is that a piece of paper claiming there is another piece of paper is not good enough, you are going to be real bummed when you learn what a long form is.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 

You can say there's no difference between a certificate and a certification 100 times, but doing so won't make it any more true. A computer doesn't generate a doctor's signature, a doctor does.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Sinnthia
 

You can say there's no difference between a certificate and a certification 100 times, but doing so won't make it any more true.


I know that. It being true already makes it true. Me addresing it has no effect either way. Neither does your denying it.

A computer doesn't generate a doctor's signature, a doctor does.


Rabbits suck a bridge design.

Random, disconnected thoughts are fun.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
For the purposes of Hawaii Homelands definition of "original", this is an "original birth certificate" even though it's not THE original birth certificate:



Because it's the long form, they refer to it as "original" but the original document was actually a piece of paper, not an image of the paper as that obviously is.


So you do not actually request to view Obama's original birth certificate in person, only an image shot of his original birth certificate, right? Again, you wish to view his original birth certificate, it makes no difference whether it is in person or through an "photo" or "image" of it. I do not understand where on earth you got that idea from?


If they microfilmed all the papers and destroyed the papers, then how should we refer to these microfilmed images of the pieces of paper? They aren't really the original papers,


So to clarify again, you do not wish to view Obama's original birth certificate, only an image of his original birth certificate. This still doesnt make any sense to me, I don't see a difference. I don't know how you view or think things through, I really don't.


Fukino said: “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures" So Fukino says they have the original which might look like the image I posted.

the.honoluluadvertiser.com...


Yep and you want Obama to release his original birth certificate. The only way you are going to get images of his original birth certificate is if he releases it, which could only mean that you want him to release his original birth certificate. I do not understand why on earth you are trying to convince me otherwise.

Are you demanding Obama release his original birth certificate or not?



Okubo said, "If someone from Obama's campaign gave us permission in person and presented some kind of verification that he or she was Obama's designee, we could release the vital record."


I can only guess what Okubo offered to release to Obama but my guess is, what she offered to release would probably be something like the microfilmed "original long form birth certificate" which isn't really an "original"


The microfilm would require Obama to release his original birth certificate for public viewing. How on earth would you get those photostat images if he did not release it to public viewing?
edit on 26-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Sounds great but it is a little hard to reach from here where I am in reality with Obama not being born in CA and all. Oh well.
Don't be so obsessed with it being an Obama issue. The AZ bill doesn't even mention Obama


The bill was created by a republican in the wake of the birther conspiracy dominating the concerns of many conservative constituents. I highly doubt that the birther bill will be paid much attention to beyond 2012, neither will it have any impact. It may be "controversial" on conspiracy and conservative forums, but that's as far as it will go.


The Arizona legislation would be an example of this, they are proposing a standard of evidence of meeting constitutional requirements for all future candidates


I doubt it. I think that if Obama were to continue on through to a second term, many birthers and backers behind this bill would not be at all happy. It will become irrelevant to them in the 2016 and 2020 elections, unless ofcourse, it involves another democrats with a foreign sounding name.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
You are funny. I hate to tell you this but the long form serves the same purpose as the short form. No matter how long your birth certificate is, it only serves to certify there is a birth registration somewhere. If your problem is that a piece of paper claiming there is another piece of paper is not good enough, you are going to be real bummed when you learn what a long form is.


I do not believe this is so much about the original birth certificate as it is about getting what he wants, which is for Obama to respond to him and many other angry voters who are still shell shocked from 2008. Because goodness knows the government cannot fake an oldish birth certificate with a doctors signature. But hey, its about getting what I want because I did not get it in 2008!

2012 should be interesting if not amusing.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I agree 100000% and feel that is probably why what used to pass for genuine curiosity has morphed into this "im not a birther but...I think he was born in Hawaii but.....I am not saying he is not a natural born citizen but......." These people sure are stocking up on buts these days. Hard when they cannot just admit what you said is the truth.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Are you demanding Obama release his original birth certificate or not?
Have you ever seen me "demand it"? I think he ought to release it but that's different from demanding it, I don't have standing to demand it. Arizona wants to see documentation for 2012 Presidential candidates based on this legislation, but even Arizona isn't demanding it.

If Obama doesn't run in 2012 there's no provision in this bill that demands to see anything from Obama.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Are you demanding Obama release his original birth certificate or not?
Have you ever seen me "demand it"? I think he ought to release it but that's different from demanding it, I don't have standing to demand it. Arizona wants to see documentation for 2012 Presidential candidates based on this legislation, but even Arizona isn't demanding it.


Yes, they are actually proposing an act that demands it.


If Obama doesn't run in 2012 there's no provision in this bill that demands to see anything from Obama.

If he doesnt run, he will not be a candidate.

This act is also proposing that you must be born in a hospital to qualify. This act is going nowhere.
edit on 26-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
This act is also proposing that you must be born in a hospital to qualify. This act is going nowhere.
We agree on some things, like that.

There is problematic language in the AZ bill that will need to be addressed before it's passed.

The language in the Texas bill doesn't require a hospital birth (from the OP article):


a bill prefiled for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, ......, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:

It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."

It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.

Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."
Nothing there about a doctor like the Arizona legislation mentions.

There are numerous other states proposing legislation mentioned in the article also.

So does the proposed Texas legislation address the concerns you have about the proposed verbiage in the Arizona bill?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Unfortunately that one is just as flawed in its wording. It clearly demands the "original birth certificate" without defining just what they mean by that. Birthers do not agree on what that means. It disqualifies me as written. There is only one original and mine has been long gone. This is not really much better.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


That's a valid point. The word "original" has been used in an ambiguous fashion as it relates to birth certificates.

I made a post about that earlier.

I'm sure they mean it in the context that Fukino used when she said: " I ...have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record" but they should clarify that.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You may be sure but I am not. I am also quite certain that you realize that as legislation, this would be utterly useless if it were to do the impossible task of passing as currently written.

This just reinforces my point. Neither act can move forward as written. They will either die or change. The only way they are going to pass while demanding a birth certificate is by changing them accept the given birth certificates from the candidates home state. At that point, Obama will hand over his short form, be declared eligible to run, and birther heads as far as down under will explode.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 
So will that mean that if all the i-s & t-s aren't dotted & crossed on the paperwork of a birth, the Whitehouse is off limits?
Hmmm... What about those born out in the 'glades etc? Nevermind, I suppose. Who wants Georgie B Goode as POTUS? He never ever learned to trade or speak so well, but he could start a war just like a ringin' a bell!
Seems like y'all could be losing a pool of talent...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join