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.

 

AZ Birther Bill accepts Circumcision Certificate even though it is not a legal document.

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Se point # 3. She was the director of Hawaii's Department of Health. She is the one who GRANTS access. As the head of the Dept, she HAS access.
And that's specified in which clause of the statute?

I'm not arguing it's not true, but just pointing out that I can't find where that statute specifically grants the director access either. So some state officials not specifically mentioned in the statute have access. Right? That statute doesn't specifically include or exclude either the department director or the governor. A different statute might but I'm not seeing it in that one.




posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by filosophia
 


Can you show me where in the Constitution it says a natural born citizen is one born on US soil to 2 parents who were also born on US soil.

Or for that matter, anything in the Constitution at all that defines what a natural born citizen is?


The constitution was not the original document of government in america, the original was called the articles of confederation. If you ask me, the only true American document was the Declaration of Independence, which beautifully outlined the right of all people to abolish corrupt governments once they become destructive of their ends. The articles of confederation did not have a federal government per se, but rather a collective friendship between the states. This was abolished however because the federal government had no power of taxation, which in my opinion was a good thing. However, George Washington was influenced by his British agent Alexander Hamilton and they decided on a compromise between federalism and anti-federalism, being the Constitution, which divides the government into three branches of government in order to intentionally make them inefficient and incapable of tyranny. The bill of rights ensured citizens protection from the law regardless of what the masses wanted. It was a good idea, but not perfect. The terms of the constitution became outdated, for instance, not too many people know what "natural born" really means. And let's not forget that guns are called "arms" so that if a politician wanted to be real slick he'd say with a straight face that the second amendment does not guarantee the right to own a gun, just the right to bear arms (get it, your two arms chuckle chuckle). This kind of reasoning is used today, where anti-second amendmenters (yes I can add -er to the end of things too) say that the founding fathers were basically simple minded farmers who could not conceive of high powered automatic weapons and so the second amendment does not protect people from these things. So, my point being, in order to understand the constitution, you have to understand the idea behind the constitution, taken from the historical context.

So, when that is considered, then it is easy to see how the people of the 13 original colonies did not fight a war with the British so that a foreign globalist could become president and thereby subvert the constitution and hand over sovereignty to the UN, which Obama is doing, one example is to give the UN military control of Libya. Another example is how Obama reappointed Bernanke (another similarity with Obama and Bush) and does not care that Bernanke is giving trillions of dollars to foreign banks.

On some issues, the constitution is incredibly clear, such as "states shall make nothing but gold and silver legal tender" Yet, the federal reserve unconstitutionally prints "bills of credit" (disallowed by the constitution), which is the harsh lesson the Americans learned from their continental currency.

So the constitution is very good on a lot of issues, not perfect, but exceptional on many levels, however, the government just ignores it and allows the fed to print illegal monopoly money.

So, I'll say this again, the birther issue is just a distraction, as another poster said, it only matters because the constitution is involved, but since the constitution is null and void when it's convenient for the shadow government, then there's really no issue any longer to consider.

Anyone who can't see that Obama is a cheap goon wearing an expensive suit is blind, and whether or not he was born in America is sort of besides the point.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by filosophia
 


So this is the gist of what I've been saying all along. If infact Obama is not eligible based on his birth status and is somehow President than it encompasses a wide range of government, and would be a true conspiracy.

If all those government agencies covered this up, don't you think there is a more nefarious plan afoot than "Obamacare"?j

And should you be worried about that, or should you spend more time repeating the same lies as other "birthers"?


The plan is to pacify half the country by bringing in a democrat as opposed to a republican. It also angers the republicans so that a new republican puppet can take over. That's really the plan. The plan is to continue the wars, continue the military prisons, continue the banker bail outs. They've succeeded on that level. Obama care is just another welfare plan.

The birther issue is one of the things I am least worried about, however the more people call it lies the more interested in looking into it, as another poster said, the more people call it a racist lie the more I think the conspiracy theory has credibility.
edit on 17-4-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I may be totally misssing it.........

but im failing to see ANYWHERE where it says you have to "describe" your penis......

What i do see is quite a few liberal links, making this claim to be inflammatory......

Typical...........and they say conservatives are the ones who use unnaceptable rhetoric to illicit response.......



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There is no statute that I know of that permits the Health Dept access to their own records. There is no statute that I know of that permits ANYONE access to their own records.

The Health Department owns the records and PERMITS access to them, when lawful. Naturally, they must have access themselves or they couldn't give it to anyone else. I'm sorry you're either not understanding this or you're just messing with me. Either way, the question has been answered.

You have moved the goalposts from claiming a fault with my logic to Linda Lingle claiming she verified Obama's records (still waiting for that, by the way) to suggesting that the head of the Health Dept needs to specifically grant themselves access to their own records...

I don't even know if the Governor looked at the Dept of Health. But if he did, he was likely told that it was against the law for him to gain access.



State Attorney General David Louie told the governor that it's against state law to release private documents, including an individual's birth documentation without the person's consent


Source



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
So you're just inferring that the department has access to their own records.

If you want to infer, doesn't the director of the department health work for the governor? And doesn't the boss usually have access to the records their subordinates have access to?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Se point # 3. She was the director of Hawaii's Department of Health. She is the one who GRANTS access. As the head of the Dept, she HAS access.
And that's specified in which clause of the statute?
Apples and oranges.

The statute in question, HRS 338-18, is concerning disclosure of records. When the Director inspected the archives and vital records there was no disclosure of records. She was doing something pursuant to her job. She also mentioned she took the state registrar (Alvin Onaka) with her—

Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records

There is most likely no statute granting access to the Director or the state registrar to the records. Handling and accessing the records is, certainly for the state registrar, necessary and pursuant to the job. I mean, is there a federal statute granting the President access to the oval office?

This is in all likelihood an inherent power.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So you're just inferring that the department has access to their own records.


I'm assuming the Dept has access to their own records. Yes. A fairly safe assumption, I think.



If you want to infer, doesn't the director of the department health work for the governor? And doesn't the boss usually have access to the records their subordinates have access to?


I'm taking the State Attorney General's word and the Hawaii Health Department's word that the Health Dept cannot release records to anyone, even the governor (without Obama's permission), unless they show a direct and tangible interest.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
I don't think that comment rules out the governor going into the DOH archives and having a look.

My interpretation was, they can't give him a copy which he would then go show the public.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My interpretation was, they can't give him a copy which he would then go show the public.
I can agree with this interpretation.

But your initial question about this doesn’t follow—

but if it's true the governor has no personal authority to verify the document, then former governor Lingle's claim about verifying the document should also be dismissed along with Abercrombie's alleged failure to be able to verify a long form birth certificate.

Governor Lingle got the information from the Director (Fukino). Lingle didn’t disclose any records.

Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You may be right. Maybe they would allow him a peek since he's the gov. I don't know. All I know is this:


State Attorney General David Louie told the governor that privacy laws barred him from disclosing an individual’s birth documentation without the person’s consent, a spokeswoman for the governor, Donalyn Dela Cruz, said Friday.

“There is nothing more that Governor Abercrombie can do within the law to produce a document,” Ms. Dela Cruz said.


Source

And this:



...it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.


Statute 338-18

As I said, I don't know specifically what the governor was looking for or where exactly he was looking. Or what they might let him see. I cannot speak to that. Now, is there a point to this?

edit on 4/17/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As I said, I don't know specifically what the governor was looking for or where exactly he was looking. Or what they might let him see. I cannot speak to that. Now, is there a point to this?
You were speaking to that, even though you don't know.

Remember this?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not sure where my logic fails.

Right here:

(psssst: Hospitals don't keep birth certificates. That's why he couldn't find one)

Before you were telling us why he couldn't find one, and now you're saying you don't know specifically what the governor was looking for or where exactly he was looking. I agree with the latter point, and what started this whole discussion was my disagreement with the former.

My point is I don't know of anything preventing the governor from going to take a look at the vital record, especially since he appoints the director and can just ask the director to give him access to look at it.

If the director of the DOH can personally see and verify the existence of a document, it will take a lot of convincing arguments to make me believe the governor can't do the same thing. The legal restrictions on not releasing the vital record to the public would apply to the governor and the director.

reply to post by aptness
 

In other words, the governor isn't an independent source of verification. Fukino said she saw the document. The governor essentially said "what she said"....hearsay.

Also, Lingle said she ordered Fukino to make a statement about Kapiolani being the birthplace of Obama, and that Fukino did that, which was a lie or miscommunication, because Fukino never did that. I find that odd to say the least given all the questions about which hospital he was even born in and the conflicting stories about that.

Actually since nobody but Fukino has claimed to have seen the vital record (that I know of), wouldn't it be ironic if it was a based on a circumcision document?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You're incorrect. I did not speak to where he looked or what he found. Just the possibilities. filosophia said the governor couldn't find the birth certificate.

I gave reasons why that may be the case.
1. Hospitals don't keep them
2. The Dept of Health won't give him access.

You inferred from my statement "Hospitals don't keep birth certificates" that I was suggesting the governor looked at the hospital. I wasn't. I don't know where he looked. How could I? And you keep leaving out the fact that I also gave the reason he didn't find it at the Health Dept. You're clearly trying to twist my words, but they are there for all to see.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Also, Lingle said she ordered Fukino to make a statement about Kapiolani being the birthplace of Obama, and that Fukino did that, which was a lie or miscommunication, because Fukino never did that. I find that odd to say the least given all the questions about which hospital he was even born in and the conflicting stories about that.


Please show me where Lingle ordered Fukino to make a statement about Kapi'olani. She didn't.



"So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii."


Source

Yes, she mistakenly thought Fukino's first statement included the hospital, but it didn't. I don't find that odd at all, considering they ALL know Obama was born at Kapi'olani.
.
edit on 4/17/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In other words, the governor isn't an independent source of verification. Fukino said she saw the document. The governor essentially said "what she said"
I don’t know if that’s exactly what happened, but from Fukino’s words that’s what I gather happened.

The point is that governor Lingle, a Republican that actively supported McCain, and delivered “a primetime address on the third night of the 2008 Republican National Convention praising John McCain’s choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running-mate”, had plenty of reasons to disclose that information if it disqualified Obama.

Either she confirmed it through other means, or she took her Director of the Department of Health, whom she appointed, at her word and there was nothing else to disclose.


....hearsay.
Considering 99% of the birther claims are based on hearsay or anonymous blogs, this raises your suspicions now? At least both Lingle and Fukino put their jobs and names on the line.


Actually since nobody but Fukino has claimed to have seen the vital record (that I know of), wouldn't it be ironic if it was a based on a circumcision document?
Why would the DOH have a circumcision document on file instead of their certificate?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


The department of vital records would hold the birth certificates I would guess. Why couldn't the governor find it? My guess would be because it is either on lockdown or doesn't exist. What's funny though is that it was predictable that this would happen. The governor claimed he was going to put the issue to rest, and then gives more ammo to the birther side. I wondered if maybe he was secretly trying to hurt Obama, but decided that he was probably just that naive to think there was nothing to the issue.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Is there a Long Form BC on file in Hawaii or not??
Simple yes or no please..


Yes.
Simple enough?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
It may not have been clear but I was referring to the Baptismal Cert. as a legal form of ID. I also posted the information on the Baptismal cert from the govt. site.

It was perfectly clear that you were claiming a CC is the same thing and that is why I was asking you to provide something to demonstrate that.


I was simply explaining that circ. cert was similar to the baptism. cert in the Jewish faith. Something that was not mentioned earlier. BTW. Obama is NOT Jewish so this element of the bill is just as irrelevant as your thread.

I know what you were "explaining." I was asking you to BACK IT UP. Because the RELEVENCY is that they are accepting a document that is not even a legal form of ID and that is ok with the birthers who keep trying to say that Obama's legal BC is not a legal ID against all logic. Sorry you missed all that. Then there is also the fact that circumcision is hardly something only Jewish people get done.


Just race baiting again.

Again? I do not think you know me.

Getting old. Obama the guy in the group photo with the big ears. Funny stuff

You're goiing to have to get more creative in the months to come.

AIR BALL.

Only if others promise to get more intelligent.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Is there a Long Form BC on file in Hawaii or not??
Simple yes or no please..


Yes.
Simple enough?


Thank you..
So Obama doesn't need to worry about penis pics..
He can just show his Long Form as proof..



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Point of this thread is? You just have to accept the fact that people out there don't believe the President is legal.

That is pretty funny. Considering it is April 2011 and Obama is not only still president, he is running again, I think YOU have to accept a few things. I do not really have to accept anything from anyone, let alone birthers who cannot get their movement out of neutral after all this time. Is that what you do? Just accept things? That might explain a lot about all this.

NOTHING you can do about it. Just like you have people out there who DO believe he is legal, nothing birthers can do about that either.

You phrase that like it is a stalemate. He is still president you know? That would be Obama 1, Birthers 0.


So instead of wasting energy on something you can't change, do something productive.

Turn around and say that to all the birthers behind you now.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
since you gave us a recap of the birther movement, I'll give you a recap of the Obama deception movement

You liberals believed Obama's birth certificate was legitimate because a website called "factcheck" .org verified it.

That is not even a little bit true but it does lead me to wonder. How many presidents have you personally verified as eligible for that seat? Please do not tell me that before Obama, you were just believing these people were eligible because someone said so. Surely you got your hands on all the real dirt like their original long form BCs? Can we see them? I believed it because it is a birth certificate and I am not a moron. It is really that simple.


You assumed the website was legitimate because why would an organization call themselves factcheck if they didn't actually do factchecking, it's not like liberals are capable of lying, only conservative tea party Republican Koch brothers can do that.

You assume too much about what people assume.


You still trusted the document even though factcheck.org was funded by the Annenberg foundation of which Obama was a chairman on. You continued to trust the document when it was revealed that his sister had the same birth certificate even though she was born in Indonesia.

The same document or one with her birth place of Indonesia listed on it? Be honest.

You liberals continued to say that Obama showed the birth certificate and anyone who denies this is racist. It was then revealed that a long form birth certificate was on file, and the governor of Hawaii vowed to find it to put the birther issue to rest, but he couldn't find it, but you continued to trust the president and changed tactics by saying that there was a long form birth certificate but it wasn't necessary because the short form is sufficient.

None of that applies to me at all so I guess the word "you" is more general?

Then it was revealed that Obama is using a fake social security number but you laugh this off as ridiculous because that would imply Obama is guilty of a federal crime which goes against the sacred logic that the messiah can not be guilty of any wrong doing, doing so means you are racist.

Revealed? You mean repeated online, right? Those are two different things.
Thank you very much for your informative and on topic post. I learned a great deal about both Arizona's new law as well as Obama's legitimacy. Compelling arguments all around.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join